Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 488 (GUJ)

Parmar Rameshbhai Jethabhai v. State of Gujarat

2020-05-21

SONIA GOKANI

body2020
ORDER : 1. Application for anticipatory bail has been preferred under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with First Information Report registered with Idar Police Sation, District: Sabarkantha being C.R. No. I-167 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. All the three applicants are respectively the elder brother-in-law (Jeth), younger brother-in-law (Der) and the brother-in-law (Nandoi) of the deceased. The accused No. 4 Mr. Punamchand Parmar - the husband of the deceased has been granted the regular bail in Criminal Misc. Application No. 6014 of 2020 vide order dated 29.04.2020. 3. The present applicants are before this Court, urging that they were not in connection with any of the allegations made in the FIR. They were not even residing with the deceased or her family. They came to know about the said news of deceased having committed suicide at her husband’s place and no role at all has been played by any of the applicants. 4. It is the say of these applicants that on 15.03.2020 at around 7:30 pm a call was received by the complainant from his bother-in-law Dudhabhai Parmar informing of his niece Bhartiben having ended her life by committing suicide. It is alleged by this applicant that after discussing many of the relatives, the complaint has been given by thoughtfully maneuvering the facts. The deceased Bhartiben was married for the past 5 years and she had been treated for her psychological issues. 5. An application for anticipatory bail was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Idar, however, the Court has not granted the same, disregarding the fact of the deceased having the mental disorder and her having been continuously treated by the family for this disorder. It is also the say of the applicants’ that the daughter of the deceased also in her affidavit dated 23.03.2020 before the Sessions Court has clearly mentioned that her mother was suffering from mental disorder and she was taken to the expert periodically for her treatment. This ought to have been regarded by the Court concerned and moreover, the span of marriage also should have been regarded. 6. On issuance of rule, learned APP Ms. Mehta appeared and she also has gathered the details from the Investigating Officer Mr. This ought to have been regarded by the Court concerned and moreover, the span of marriage also should have been regarded. 6. On issuance of rule, learned APP Ms. Mehta appeared and she also has gathered the details from the Investigating Officer Mr. Vaghela, who has been asked to remain present today through video conferencing and who also has given the details of investigation. He confirms that the statement of children of the deceased and the main accused no. 1 reveal the fact that she was suffering from mental disorder and was being treated by the doctor. He also has the certificates dated 10.02.2020 and 20.02.2020. This act of commission of suicide was on 15.03.2020. He has further submitted to the Court that none of the petitioners has been staying with the deceased and the applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 though staying nearby, stays in a different village. 7. This Court has heard extensively learned advocate Mr. Dave, who has urged the Court that this is a mala-fide complaint against the relatives and therefore, has urged that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion of grant of anticipatory bail. He has further urged that they are though relatives, would have no say in any household internal matter of family of the deceased .Again, it is urged that the span of marriage is also quite longer and the very statement of the children should have been taken into account by the Sessions Court. 8. This Court has heard learned APP who along the line of the papers of investigation has argued this matter and resisted the same on the ground that this is an anticipatory bail application and offences are serious in nature, however, it is being confirmed that none of the applicants has been sharing the household with the deceased. 9. 8. This Court has heard learned APP who along the line of the papers of investigation has argued this matter and resisted the same on the ground that this is an anticipatory bail application and offences are serious in nature, however, it is being confirmed that none of the applicants has been sharing the household with the deceased. 9. In wake of the details which have been shared through the FIR as well as the papers of investigation, the Court needs to regard to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 2011 SC 312 , where the Apex Court has held that the discretion of the Court for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. needs to be invoked in exceptional and rare cases, however, it should be based on the material available and the facts which have been investigated during the course of investigation. Apt would be to reproduce paragraph 122 of the said decision: “122. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: (i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made. (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence. (iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice. (iv) The possibility of the accused likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. (v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern. (viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused. (ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.” 10. Considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, in the instant case, it is about the demand of dowry and the other harassment at the end of the in-laws, the fact remains that none of the applicants was staying with the deceased and the marriage span is of nearly 25 years. It is a matter of record that her own daughter who is a major and educated has confirmed her mental disorder and treatment form the doctor till recently. There are no antecedents admittedly of any of the applicants and they are though relatives, not staying in the same household and prima-facie do not appear to have any say in the lives of the deceased and her family. 11. The Court also needs to consider while exercising discretion as to whether this is a case where there is an over implication or there is a possibility of attempting to drag all members of family by seeking unjustified detention of them and to humiliate the family. 11. The Court also needs to consider while exercising discretion as to whether this is a case where there is an over implication or there is a possibility of attempting to drag all members of family by seeking unjustified detention of them and to humiliate the family. Without further elaboration as that may affect the outcome of the trial, even while being conscious of the fact that the offence perpetrated are against the woman which need to be regarded with all seriousness, the Court cannot permit lopsided approach and needs to strike a balance with glaring facts which are immerging on record. If the available material looked into carefully, it can be seen that the present applicants are respectively the brothers-in-law and they had not resided under the same roof, and there is no specific role of any of them and after about 25 years with her mental state when she has chosen to end the life, it is an unfortunate event, but at the same time, there is sufficient material to exercise discretion in favour of the applicants. 12. Without further elaborating the evidences, this Court deems it appropriate to exercise allow the application for anticipatory bail. 13. In the result, this application is allowed by directing that in the event of the applicants herein being arrested pursuant to FIR being C.R. No. I-167 of 2020 registered with Idar Police Station, District: Sabarkantha, the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court in following conditions that they:- (a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required. (b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 25.05.2020 between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. (c) shall not hamper the investigation in any manner nor shall directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. (d) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change the residence till the final disposal of the case or till further orders. (d) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change the residence till the final disposal of the case or till further orders. (e) will not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if are holding a Passport, shall surrender the same before the trial Court immediately. (f) despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant. The applicants will remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a re- quest in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicants, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order. (g) if arrested, to furnish the present address of residence to the investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court. 14. At the trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage, made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. 15. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.