ORDER : 1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Amit Desai with learned Senior Advocate Mr. Nirupam Nanawaty with learned advocate Mr. Keyur Gandhi and learned Advocate Mr. Maulik Sheth on behalf of the applicant. 2. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Mr. L. B. Dabhi for the respondent-State 3. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. S. I. Nanavati with learned Advocate Mr. Vaibhav Shukla on behalf of the first informant. 4. By way of this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant prays for being released on anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 11206020220655 of 2022 registered with Kadi Police Station, District Mehsana, on 16.07.2022 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 325, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148, and 149of the Indian Penal Code and under section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. 5. The FIR inter-alia alleges that the family of the first informant had entered into an agreement with his cousin brother and his family who were the owners of a parcel of land, which will be referred to as disputed land hereinafter and whereas it appears that there were some civil litigation also going on as regards the land in question. It is alleged that the present applicant had purchased the property in the year 2021 in the midst of the legal proceedings and whereas it is alleged that the accused had come to the property in question at the behest of and upon the instructions of the present applicant and had assaulted the brothers of the first informant as well as one more person who was present at the site of the incident and whereas it is alleged that one of the brothers of the first informant Sukhdevbhai had expired a day after the incident i.e. on 16.07.2022. It further appears that later on approximately a month after the incident the second brother of the first informant who had also sustained injuries had also expired on 14.08.2022 though there is some controversy with regard to the said person having being discharged and later on having been admitted and unfortunately expiring. It further appears that later on approximately a month after the incident the second brother of the first informant who had also sustained injuries had also expired on 14.08.2022 though there is some controversy with regard to the said person having being discharged and later on having been admitted and unfortunately expiring. 5.1 At this stage it would also be relevant to mention that it is nobody’s case that the present applicant was at the spot of the incident or had committed any overt act in so far as the incident is concerned and whereas as referred to herein above the only allegation against the applicant is that the incident had occurred at this behest or upon his instructions. 6. Learned senior advocate Mr. Amit Desai on behalf of the applicant would take this Court through various documents, more particularly with regard to the Civil Proceedings and the Revenue Proceedings and would submit that while the first informant who was the plaintiff in the Civil Suit claimed possession of the property from 1995 and whereas the Civil Suit came to be decided in the year 2019 and whereas while there was an interim relief in favour of the plaintiff in the interregnum yet in the Civil Suit the learned Trial Court while rejecting the suit had not believed the possession of the plaintiff. Learned senior advocate would submit that the original land owner had also after the order of the learned Civil Court applied for conversion of the property and whereas vide order dated 16.10.2021, the Collector, Mehsana had granted N. A. permission and whereas the possession of the property is verified in the said proceedings and whereas the same, according to the order, is with the original owners of the property . Learned senior advocate would further submit that as a matter of fact while the order of the learned Civil Court had been challenged by the present first informant and whereas in the said appeal proceedings no interim relief had been granted in favour of the first informant. Learned senior advocate would further submit that as a matter of fact while the order of the learned Civil Court had been challenged by the present first informant and whereas in the said appeal proceedings no interim relief had been granted in favour of the first informant. Learned senior advocate on the basis of this and other documents would try and emphasis that the possession of the property in question was with the sellers of the property and the same had passed over to the present applicant and therefore, there was no question for the present applicant to have attempted to take law in his hands for the purpose of getting the possession of the property in question. At this stage, learned Senior Advocate would submit that the land had been purchased after the decision of the Civil Court, when there had not been any issue with regard to the title of the property. 6.1 Learned senior advocate would thereafter draw the attention of this Court to the FIR and would submit that the FIR for such a serious offence which had occurred according to the FIR itself between 9:00 AM to 10:00 AM on 15.07.2022 had been registered at 23:30 hrs on the next date i.e. on 16.07.2022. Learned senior advocate would submit that the delay of 36 hours in filing the FIR, is only on account of the fact that the first informant had contrived to somehow implicate the present applicant as owner of the property and whereas it is submitted that it is only on account of such a design on the part of the first informant that the delay had occurred. Learned senior advocate would also draw the attention of this Court to the fact that the incident in question had happened approximately half a kilometer away from the Police Station and whereas it is submitted that the first informant in the FIR inter-alia states that his brother who was residing in the same vicinity had informed the first informant who was residing at Ahmedabad about the other accused having entered into the land and having assaulted the brothers of the first informant at the behest of the present applicant. Learned senior advocate would submit that the brother who was present in the vicinity of the land neither calls the police nor calls the ambulance nor calls any neighbours or friends or any family members and rushes to the spot of the incident and calls his brother who is residing at Ahmedabad and whereas the said aspect according to learned senior advocate is one more issue which would show the frivolity in the prosecution as far as the present applicant is concerned. Learned senior advocate would further take this Court through the recitals of the FIR and would submit that as per the FIR, the first informant and his son reached the spot of the incident approximately after half hour to one hour and whereas they had witnessed the other accused assaulting the brothers of the first informant and whereas the first informant or his son do not try to intervene and they stand at the fence and watch the assault in question. It is submitted that the said behavior of the first informant and his son is absolutely suspicious and raises questions about their motive. It is further submitted by learned senior advocate that the FIR does not reveal as to how the injured victims had reached the hospital, which also raises questions about the motive of the first informant. 6.2 Learned senior advocate would submit that the present first informant is relying upon an N.C. complaint given by the first informant on 15.04.2022 to the police authorities interalia alleging that the accused i.e. accused Nos. 2 and 3 at the behest of the present applicant had come to the land and had threatened the brothers of the first informant. 6.3 Learned senior advocate would also draw the attention of this Court to certain affidavits submitted before the learned Magistrate filed by the first informant, his family members as well as the victim of the incident apart from the deceased brothers of the first informant and would submit that all the affidavits are completely contrary to each other and whereas learned senior advocate would emphasis on the affidavit submitted by one Bhavesh Arvindbhai Shukla i.e son of the brother of the first informant, more particularly as regards to the aspect that the brother of the first informant having called the first informant as regards the incident in question. Learned senior advocate would submit that the said Bhavesh in his affidavit dated 27.07.2022 i.e. approximately after 11 days of the incident had filed an affidavit inter-alia alleging that he received a message/phone call at around 11:00 AM from the first informant himself that there is an attack at the land of the first informant and whereas he was asked to rush to the spot. It also appears that at that time the said Bhavesh had no idea about any injury caused to his uncles at the land in question yet it appears that the said person had called up 108 ambulance service. It also appears that instead of rushing to the land the said person had gone to the Police Station and it is alleged that inspite of request the Police Authorities had not gone to the aid of the family of the first informant. Such and other various inconsistencies have been brought to the notice of this Court by learned senior advocate in the affidavit filed by the family members of the first informant. Having regard to such circumstances, learned senior advocate would submit that the present applicant appears to have been falsely implicated more particularly only on account of an allegation that there was a dispute with regard to the possession. 6.4 Learned senior advocate would submit that there being no material which would show that the present applicant had in any way either conspired or instructed the other accused to have the possession of the property vacated or to do away the deceased to death, the present applicant ought not to have undergo the rigors of custodial interrogation that too in such a serious offence. 7. This application is vehemently objected to by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Mr. L. B. Dabhi. At the request of this Court, learned APP has provided to this Court statements of the persons who were the actual assailants and who have been taken into custody by the Investigating Officer. On perusal of the statements of the accused Labhubhai it appears that the said person was the originator of the transaction with regard to the present applicant having purchased the land in question. It appears that the said Labhubhai had an oral understanding with the seller of the property of having purchased the land at around Rs. On perusal of the statements of the accused Labhubhai it appears that the said person was the originator of the transaction with regard to the present applicant having purchased the land in question. It appears that the said Labhubhai had an oral understanding with the seller of the property of having purchased the land at around Rs. 2.21 crores and whereas the land was to be sold to the present applicant at around Rs. 2.50 crores. It also prima-facie appears that the onus of ensuring that the possession is given to the purchaser of the property i.e. the present applicant was on the co-accused Labhubhai and Ratnabhai. 7.1 It is also pertinent to mention here that while there is a slight inconsistency in the statement of accused Ratnabhai as compared to the statement of Labhubhai but the underlying intention of securing around Rs. 29 lakhs from the transaction and also of being responsible for handing over the possession of the property to the present applicant is clearly made out from the said statements. 7.2 Learned APP Mr. Dabhi would submit that looking to the nature and gravity of the offence the applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail by this Court. 8. This application is also objected to by learned senior advocate Mr. S. I. Nanavati on behalf of the first informant. Learned senior advocate would take this Court in detail through the orders of the Civil Court and whereas learned senior advocate would submit that as such there was no dispute with regard to the fact that the possession of the property was with the family of the first informant. It is submitted by learned senior advocate that even a perusal of the judgment of the learned Civil Court, which according to the present applicant was in favour of the original defendants, would show that the learned Civil Court had specifically mentioned that the plaintiff is not able to prove his possession over the property in question. Learned senior advocate would submit that the learned Civil Court had not come to a specific finding that the present first informant and his family members were not in possession of the property. Learned senior advocate would submit that the learned Civil Court had not come to a specific finding that the present first informant and his family members were not in possession of the property. Learned senior advocate would also submit that as such there was a issue with regard to the possession and whereas the possession of the property was with the present first informant and his family members and after the land had been purchased by the present applicant, during the course of proceedings, after name of the present applicant had been mutated in the revenue record, more particularly vide an entry which was certified on 11.04.2022, that the present applicant started taking action for getting possession of the land in question. Learned senior advocate would also emphasis on the complaint submitted by the present first informant and would submit that at the relevant point of time i.e. on 15.04.2022, there was no inkling on the part of the first informant as regards such a serious issue taking place for getting possession of the property. Learned senior advocate would submit that even in such application, it was specifically mentioned that the persons named in the said application i.e. accused Nos. 2 and 3 had come to the property at the behest of the present applicant and had threatened the brothers of the first informant that they would be done to death if they would not vacate the property in question. Learned senior advocate would also rely upon affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer before the learned Sessions Court and would submit that the Investigating Officer has clearly observed that the present applicant had promised an amount of Rs. 2.21 lakhs for getting the possession of the property in question and whereas it also appears that the present applicant was in touch with the accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the days prior to the date of the incident in question. Having regard to such submissions learned senior advocate would request this Court not release the present applicant on Anticipatory Bail more particularly considering the fact that the allegation against the applicant is of having conspired to do two persons to death. 9. Heard learned senior advocates for the respective parties and learned APP for the respondent – State. Having regard to such submissions learned senior advocate would request this Court not release the present applicant on Anticipatory Bail more particularly considering the fact that the allegation against the applicant is of having conspired to do two persons to death. 9. Heard learned senior advocates for the respective parties and learned APP for the respondent – State. While this Court is conscious of the fact that a detailed examination of the facts and material is not necessary at this stage of considering an application for Anticipatory Bail and whereas the following relevant aspects are considered by this Court for deciding the present application: [1] It clearly appears that the present applicant was not amongst the assailants and whereas the present applicant was not present at the scene of offence. [2] While it appears that the present applicant was owner of the property in question and whereas while it has been attempted to be argued by learned senior advocate Mr. Desai for the present applicant that there was no dispute as regards to possession of the property and whereas while in the considered opinion of this Court as far as the official documents including the order passed by the learned Civil Court as well as the N.A. order by the Collector would show that the possession was not with the first informant and his family members but infact, actually, more particularly, placing reliance upon the statement of the co-accused who have been apprehended, it prima-facie appears that there was some dispute with regard to the actual possession of the land. [3] It also appears from the statement of the accused i.e. co-accused Labhubhai and Ratnabhai, that the said accused had initially entered into a deal with the original owner of the property from whom the present applicant had purchased the property. It appears that the said co-accused had fixed the price of the land at Rs. 2.21 crores with the original owner of the land and whereas the land was to be sold to the present applicant at Rs. 2.50 crores. It appears that the difference of Rs. 29 lakhs was to be kept by the coaccused Labhubhai and Ratnabhai. [4] It also appears very clearly from the statement of the said accused persons that the onus of getting vacant possession of the property was upon the said accused persons. 2.50 crores. It appears that the difference of Rs. 29 lakhs was to be kept by the coaccused Labhubhai and Ratnabhai. [4] It also appears very clearly from the statement of the said accused persons that the onus of getting vacant possession of the property was upon the said accused persons. [5] It further appears that the statement of the coaccused prima-facie appear to be confirmed that they are land brokers and whereas the same aspect has been mentioned by the first informant in his original N. C. complaint dated 15.04.2022. It also appears that in none of the statements the co-accused Labhubhai or Ratnabhai state about the applicant having promised any money for vacating the land in question and whereas it also appears that the amount of Rs. 2.21 lakhs referred to in the affidavit of the Investigating Officer before the learned Sessions Court, was the amount which was to be given to Labhubhai and Ratnabhai as brokerage for the land in question. [6] It further appears that apart from this reference to the amount of Rs. 2.10 lakhs, there is not reference of such an amount more particularly there being no reference that the applicant having promised any such amount to the co-accused for vacating the property in question. [7] While it appears that the present applicant may have asked the said accused to abide by the promise of getting vacant possession of the land in question but in the considered opinion of this Court such request for abiding by their own promise would not automatically translate into being part of a criminal conspiracy under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. [8] It also appears to this Court that the other co-accused including brother of Ratnabhai i.e. Rajubhai had come to the land at the behest of the accused persons Labhubhai and Ratnabhai. [9] From the statements of co-accused it does not appear that the present applicant had given any specific instructions to the said accused either to have the land vacated forcibly or to take law in their hands and/or to even assault and more particularly to do the deceased to death. None of the statements reflect any positive instructions by the present applicant except an instruction/request to the accused persons Labhubhai and Ratnabhai to abide by their promise and get vacant possession of the land. None of the statements reflect any positive instructions by the present applicant except an instruction/request to the accused persons Labhubhai and Ratnabhai to abide by their promise and get vacant possession of the land. [10] It further appears that the applicant is a developer and whereas the co-accused with whom the applicant is shown to be in touch near around the date when the incident had happened could not be the only material on the basis of which the applicant could be required to undergo custodial interrogation, as such telephonic conversation between a land developer and land broker would be in the normal course of events and even the co-accused do not claim to have been instructed by the present applicant to do any illegal act. [11] It also appears that the FIR has been filed, with a delay of 36 hours and whereas it appears that the said aspect, would be very relevant for the purpose of the present application more particularly if considered from the perspective of the fact that the Police Station was only half a kilometer away from the place of the incident. [12] It also requires to be mentioned that the statement of the first informant, his brother Arvindbhai who informed him about the incident, affidavit of son of Arvindbhai, affidavit of son of the present first informant Pratikbhai and affidavit of son of one of the deceased Sukhdevbhai i.e. Raj, all point out to the inconsistencies in the theory propounded by the prosecution. [13] It appears, as can be made out from the FIR as well as the affidavits referred to hereinabove that brother of the first informant who was residing in the near vicinity of the place where the incident had taken place, had initially instead of either calling out the police or any other authorities had informed the present first informant who was residing approximately 45 minutes to 1 hour away about the incident. [14] It also appears that son of one of the deceased was also having a shop which was adjacent to the land in question and whereas upon hearing the noises about the assault, he had gone to the place of incident on his scooter and whereas instead of trying to help his father and father’s brother, Raj Sukhdevbhai had taken the third injured persons on his scooter to a village in the vicinity from where the said person appears to have gone to some hospital. It further appears that the said person neither tried to intervene nor gathers any of his friends or relatives to go to the place of incident more particularly, since it appears that the said person was the first person from the family to reach the place of incident on account of the fact that he had taken one of the injured during the course of incident yet the said person neither goes to the Police Station nor informs any of his friends and intervenes. [15] It also appears that while the first informant in the FIR inter-alia states about being informed by his brother between 9:00AM and 10:00AM about the other accused having attacked his brother in the land in question yet in his application to the Police Inspector which was affirmed before the learned Magistrate, it appears that the said brother of the first informant Arvindbhai does not mention about any such phone call. [16] It also appears that while the FIR mentions about 5 persons having entered the agricultural field, the injured witness states about 10 persons having entered the agricultural field whereas in his affidavit Raj son of deceased Sukhdev Shukla mentions about 100 persons having entered in the agricultural field. Thus it clearly appears that there is an attempt by the prosecution to exaggerate the version. Thus it clearly appears that there is an attempt by the prosecution to exaggerate the version. [17] It also appears that while at the relevant point of time none of the persons i.e. the first informant or his family members had called up either 100 for Police assistance or had visited the Police Station yet later on in their affidavits before the learned Court below, it is attempted to be stated that at the relevant point of time, 100 number had been called by many of the family members and whereas there was no response and whereas it is also stated that some of the family members including Arvindbhai and his son had visited the Police Station requesting for assistance and whereas the same had been refused. Such submission with regard to 100 number as well as the family of the first informant having visited the Police Station is strongly refuted by learned APP Mr. Dabhi upon instructions from the Investigation Officer. [18] It further appears that while the family members of the first informant had inter-alia alleged about having gone to the Police Station at the time of the incident and also having called up 100 number for Police assistance in their affidavit before the learned Magistrate yet it also appears that in the detailed affidavit-in-reply filed by the first informant there is no reference to such facts of the family of the first informant either having gone to the Police Station during the course of incident or even trying to call 100 number during such time. [19] In so far as the aspect of present applicant having an antecedent is concerned, it appears that an FIR inter-alia for offence punishable under section 304, 337, 308, 195, 196 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code had been registered against the present applicant for an accident which had occurred in a property developed by the applicant. Such FIR being of the year 2021 and whereas the learned Sessions Court had granted Anticipatory Bail to the present applicant and whereas the applicant had also approached this Court praying for quashing of the FIR and vide an order dated 10.01.2022, the learned Co-ordinate bench of this Court had been pleased to direct the Investigating Officer not to file chargesheet without permission of this Court whereas liberty to continue investigation was granted. In the considered opinion of this Court, an FIR for an offence punishable under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code where the applicant had been released on Anticipatory Bail and where this Court had deemed it appropriate to direct the Investigating Officer not to file chargesheet would not lead to an automatic conclusion that the applicant is habituated in committing offences. [20] Having regard to the observations made hereinabove, in the considered opinion of this Court more particularly in view of the statements of the coaccused who have carried out the actual assault and form the inconsistencies in the version put forth by the first informant and his family members, in the considered opinion of this Court, the aspect of frivolity in prosecution cannot be ruled out. [21] While this Court is conscious that the allegation in the FIR is with regard to causing death of two persons, which is as submitted by learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavati one of the most serious offences against the human body but at the same time in the considered opinion of this Court, the aspect of frivolity in prosecution, which would lead to the liberty of a person being impinged upon and such a person being required to undergo custodial interrogation for no reason, is also an aspect which would equally weigh with this Court. 10. This Court has also considered the fact situation from the context of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011)1 SCC 694 , more particularly from the context of the parameter which have to be taken into consideration while dealing with an application for Anticipatory Bail. Having regard to the same, this Court observes that while the nature and the gravity of accusation is undoubtedly serious more particularly having regard to the offences alleged at the same time, the exact role which is attributed to the applicant, in the FIR is of being a conspirator and whereas as noted hereinabove, from the investigation papers it clearly appears that neither there was any conspiracy nor the present applicant had in any way instructed any of the other co-accused to take law into their own hands. Furthermore, insofar as the antecedent of the applicant is concerned as noted hereinabove, while the applicant is named in a FIR, the applicant had not previously undergone any imprisonment and whereas as noted hereinabove, the applicant had been released on Anticipatory Bail by the learned Sessions Court with regard to the said offence and whereas this Court had also taken prima-facie cognizance of the FIR. It also appears that there is no apprehension voiced by the Investigating Authority that there is any possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice. It also appears that prima-facie there is no possibility of the accused committing any similar offence more particularly in view of the fact that the applicant is shown to be a developer of land and whereas in all these years no such complaint having been registered against the applicant. 10.1 It also appears that prima-facie the accusations have been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him more particularly since it appears that the applicant is attempted to be roped in as an accused merely on the basis of an assumption, which assumption in the considered opinion of this Court, prima-facie not appearing to be correct as from the statement of the coaccused. 10.2 It also appears that grating Anticipatory Bail to the present applicant would not have any effect of large magnitude more particularly on account of the fact that the offence is personal in nature. 10.3 Furthermore, having evaluated the entire available material and the exact role of the present applicant, in the considered opinion of this Court, prima-facie the present appears to be a case of over-implication since the present applicant is sought to be implicated by the aid of section 34 and 120-B and whereas there is no common intention which could be prima-facie made out by this Court. More particularly considering the investigation papers which reveals that the responsibility of getting vacant possession of the land was upon accused Nos. 2 and 3. Thus, it also appears that there is no agreement by the parties to commit an offence more particularly there being no material suggest such an agreement between the parties which would be an essential component for implicating the application on the basis of section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2 and 3. Thus, it also appears that there is no agreement by the parties to commit an offence more particularly there being no material suggest such an agreement between the parties which would be an essential component for implicating the application on the basis of section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 10.4 Insofar as the balance which is required to be struck between any prejudice to the free, fair and full investigation and prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused, in the considered opinion of this Court to balance the said aspect, while this Court proposes to release the present applicant subject to imposing certain stringent conditions so as to ensure that there could not be any prejudice to the investigation. Stringent conditions could also be imposed upon the applicant to ensure that there is no apprehension of tampering of witnesses or any threat to the complainant. 10.5 Insofar as the aspect of frivolity of prosecution is concerned, this Court is inclined to hold in favour of the present applicant more particularly relying upon the observations of Hon’ble Apex Court that ‘the element of genuineness only 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.’ That as noted hereinabove, as far as the applicant is concerned, the prosecution prima-facie appears to be frivolous since there are grave inconsistencies in the case of the first informant, more particularly with a view to implicate the present applicant and whereas it also appears as noted hereinabove from the investigation papers that neither the applicant was part of any conspiracy nor the present applicant had any common intention nor did the applicant instruct the other co-accused to take law in their hands, rather as it appears the co-accused in furtherance of their responsibility to have the land vacated had taken law in their hands. 10.6 In this view of the matter, more particularly having considered the fact situation from the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it clearly appears to this Court that discretion is required to be exercised in favour of the present applicant. 11. 10.6 In this view of the matter, more particularly having considered the fact situation from the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it clearly appears to this Court that discretion is required to be exercised in favour of the present applicant. 11. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to the FIR No. 11206020220655 of 2022 registered with Kadi Police Station, District Mehsana, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety of like amount, on the following conditions: (a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required; (b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 12.10.2022 between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.; (c) shall mark his presence at the concerned Police Station once every week till the chargesheet is filed; (d) shall not enter the District Mehsana till the chargesheet is filed except for the purpose of co-operating with the investigation; (e) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (f) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the Police; (g) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change his residence till the final disposal of the case or till further orders; (h) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if having passport shall surrender the same before the Trial Court within a week. 12. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to file an application for police remand of the applicant to the competent Magistrate, if he thinks it just and proper and learned Magistrate would decide it on merits. The applicant 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. The applicant 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. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if ultimately granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicant, 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. 13. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations made by this Court which are prima-facie in nature only for the purpose of considering the application for grant of anticipatory bail. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.