Gujarat High Court
Tejasbhai Chandrakantbhai Tank vs State Of on 20 February, 2013
Author: S. Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave, S. Dave
TEJASBHAI CHANDRAKANTBHAI TANK....Applicant(s)V/SSTATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s) R/CR.MA/2854/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL ) NO. 2854 of 2013 ================================================================ TEJASBHAI CHANDRAKANTBHAI TANK....Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MRS.DHARITA P MALKAN, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS.KHUSHBOO V MALKAN, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 Mr. J.K. Shah, APP, for respondent ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE Date : 20/02/2013 ORAL ORDER
Rule.
Learned APP, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent - State.
This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with first information report registered at CR No.I-5 of 2012 with Panshina Police Station, Surendranagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 144, 456, 467, 468, 471 and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, a junior advocate, is alleged to have procured documents for registration of marriage of victim, aged about 15 years 9 months, to which, the applicant had no knowledge and the registration was on the basis of nikhanama . It is further submitted that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
Heard Learned APP for the respondent State.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the applicant and punishment prescribed for the alleged offences, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Reported in [2011]1 SCC 694, wherein the Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Reported in [1980]2 SCC 565.
Learned counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.
In the result, this application is allowed by directing that in the event of the applicant herein being arrested pursuant to first information report registered at CR No.I-5 of 2012 with Panshina Police Station, Surendranagar, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of like amount on following conditions :-
[a] shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required.
[b] shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 27.2.2013 between 11:00 am to 2:00 pm:
[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;
[e] will not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if is 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 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.
Rule made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly.
Direct service is permitted.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.) [swamy] Page 4 of 4