Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 116 (GUJ)

Maghabhai Arjanbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

2022-01-20

ALPESH Y.KOGJE

body2022
JUDGMENT : ALPESH Y. KOGJE, J. 1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with FIR being I-CR No. 11195050211003 of 2021 registered with Tharad Police Station, Banaskantha for offence under Sections 389, 387, 385, 500, 501, 505(1)(c), 506(2), 292 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act. 2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. 3. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that the applicant is having four antecedents. 4. Learned senior advocate Mr. N.D. Nanavaty with learned advocate Mr. R.J. Goswami for the original complainant that father of the complainant is in public life and therefore, by showing the father of the complainant in such manner would directly malign the public image of the victim. Moreover, it is submitted that the intention of the applicant was clear, when he paid money for purchasing of video clipping. It is submitted that the investigation with regards to the fact whether such clipping is morphed or not is still pending before the FSL. 5. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order. 6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:- I. The FIR is registered on 10.08.2021 for the offence which is alleged to have taken place between 02.08.2021 to 10.08.2021. II. The applicant is in jail since 11.08.2021. III. The investigation is concluded and charge-sheet is filed. IV. Submission of learned advocate for the applicant that the offence itself is not completed as the allegation against the applicant is to blackmail the complainant's father by showing the video clip however, there is no actual transfer of money in that regards. V. Submission of learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant is arraigned as an accused only on account of political rivalry between the applicant and the father of the complainant. VI. With regards to antecedents, learned advocate for the applicant submits that the antecedents are of the same nature. V. Submission of learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant is arraigned as an accused only on account of political rivalry between the applicant and the father of the complainant. VI. With regards to antecedents, learned advocate for the applicant submits that the antecedents are of the same nature. Moreover, the antecedents are of the year 2009, 2016 and 2019, where the applicant has been enlarged on regular bail. VII. Learned APP under instructions of IO is unable to bring on record any special circumstances against the applicant. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 8. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR being I-CR No. 11195050211003 of 2021 registered with Tharad Police Station, Banaskantha, on executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall; (a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; (b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution & shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and shall not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police; (c) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week; (d) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Trial Court concerned; (e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in a month for a period of six months between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.; (f) furnish the present address of his 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 Trial Court; (g) not to enter District Banaskantha for a period of six months except marking presence and for attending the trial. (h) learned advocate, under the instructions, states that he shall file an undertaking before the trial Court that the applicant will not make any statement public, through print or electronic media so as to damage the public image of the victim and his family members. (I) the undertaking to be filed within a period of one week of his release. 9. The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. 10. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law. 11. 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. 12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.