Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 106 (GUJ)

Gopal Lakshmi Prasad Sharma v. State of Gujarat

2022-01-19

B.N.KARIA

body2022
JUDGMENT : B.N. Karia, J. 1. Present appellant filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 45 of 2021 below Exh. 6 before the court of learned 4th (Ad-hoc) Additional District & Sessions Judge, Navsari, Aahava u/s. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requesting to enlarge the appellant on bail after he being arrested on account of an offence being registered vide C.R. No. 11219030210162 of 2021 with Saputara Police Station, Dang for the offence punishable u/s.376(2) (n), 312 of IPC and u/s. 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short "Atrocity Act"), wherein, the learned 4th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari, at Aahava dismissed the said application vide order dated 8.10.2021. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal u/s. 14A of the Atrocity Act. 3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 4. It was submitted by learned advocate for the appellant that the appellant is falsely implicated in the alleged incident. That, it appears from the allegations that the offence is committed from 10.10.2015 to 22.12.2020 and the complaint was filed on 29.7.2021. That, the appellant is aged 24 years and the complainant is aged 27 years. That, both were having love affair and both wanted to get married but due to COVID-2019, the appellant has to go in his native place and due to circumstances, the appellant and complainant did not get married. That, the appellant and complainant were in relation since last 6 years and appellant never gave false promises. That, the investigation was concluded and charge-sheet was also filed. Hence, learned advocate for the appellant requests this Court to enlarge the appellant on bail. 5. Learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant and submitted that serious offence was committed by the present appellant and no lenient view shall be taken by this Court to enlarge the appellant on bail. Hence, it was requested by learned APP to dismiss the appeal. 6. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that respondent No. 2 has no objection if the appellant would be released on bail by this Court. He invited the attention of this Court regarding affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2 and requested to consider the same and pass necessary order. 7. 6. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that respondent No. 2 has no objection if the appellant would be released on bail by this Court. He invited the attention of this Court regarding affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2 and requested to consider the same and pass necessary order. 7. Having considered the facts of the case and submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State as well as learned advocate for the respondent No. 2, it appears that alleged offence was committed from 10.10.2015 to 22.12.2020 and the complaint was filed on 29.7.2021. It also appears that the age of the appellant is 24 years and the complainant is 27 years. From the contents of the application, it appears that both of them were in relation since last 6 years and have love affair. It also appears that both of them wanted to get married but due to COVID-19 the appellant left his service and denied to marry with the prosecutrix. It also appears that appellant and complainant were in love relation since last 6 years and complainant never objected for the same. In the affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 at page 28, she has clearly stated that she has no objection if appellant would be released on bail by this Court. Learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 has identified the signature of respondent No. 2 in the said affidavit. Considering the facts of the case, after period of six years, this complaint was filed by the complainant against the appellant. It also appears that there is no specific averments under section 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 are made in the appeal. 8. In the result, present Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 8.10.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 45 2021 by learned 4th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari, at Aahava is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 8. In the result, present Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 8.10.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 45 2021 by learned 4th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari, at Aahava is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with surety of like amount on the following conditions that the appellant shall:- (a) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (b) at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders; (c) it would be open to the Investigating officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits; (d) mark his presence at the concerned police station twice in a month on 1st day and 15 day of each English Calender Month between 9.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. till the trial is over 9. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the appellant. The appellant shall 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. 10. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the appellant on bail. 11. Registry shall communicate this order to the concerned Sessions Court as well as concerned jail authorities.