Gujarat High Court
Nirav Dilipbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 22 December, 2014
Author: S.G.Shah
Bench: S.G.Shah
R/CR.MA/17476/2014 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 17476 of 2014
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 18263 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================================ NIRAV DILIPBHAI PATEL....Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance:
MR FB BRAHMBHATT, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. HARDIK K RAVAL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MS HANSA PUNANI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH Date : 22/12/2014 Page 1 of 19 R/CR.MA/17476/2014 CAV JUDGMENT COMMON CAV JUDGMENT
1. All these applications for bail are arising out of the same FIR and therefore though role and thereby allegations against the applicants in FIR are different, since basic facts are common, they are heard together and decided by this common judgment.
1.1 It seems that this is a luxury litigation between the parties, in as much as, this is 3rd or 4th round of applications before the High Court and both the sides are presenting their stand vehemently.
2. Though minute details of the case is not much material at such stage for deciding applications for bail, considering the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to recollect the details of complaint with development of investigation from the date of complaint till date, at least in brief, which is as under:
2.1 Complainant Urvesh B. Patel is an agriculturist and residing at Gandhinagar. He has lodged a written complaint dated 05.04.2013 before the Adalaj Police Station against in all 9 persons alleging that they have committed offence under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120B as well as 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged in such complaint that grand father of the complainant namely Kacharabhai Babubhai Patel was expired on 21.08.1987 leaving two successors, i.e. one son namely Baldevbhai Kacharabhai and one daughter namely Dhuliben Kacharabhai. Thereby agricultural land bearing survey Nos. 31, 56, 57/2, 65 and 66 of the seem of Koteshwar village of District :
Gandhinagar were mutated in the name of Baldevbhai, who is father of the complainant. On 15.06.2000, said Baldevbhai, also expired and Page 2 of 19 R/CR.MA/17476/2014 CAV JUDGMENT thereupon name of present complainant was mutated in revenue record as successor in the said land on 23.01.2001 and till then it is owned and possessed by the complainant who is cultivating the same.
2.2 In such complaint, complainant has disclosed the name of applicants in Cr. M. A. No. 18263 of 2014 as accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who are brothers. However, though three sisters of accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and two other persons are also named in the complaint as an accused, name of applicant No. 17476 of 2014 namely Nirav D. Patel is not disclosed as an accused in the FIR.
2.3 The allegation in the FIR against all the accused named thereunder is to the effect that amongst them accused Nos. 2 to 7 had though knowing fully well that they do not have any right, title, interest or ownership or possession of the suit property, had executed one power of attorney deed on 29.05.2009 in favour of accused No. 1 who filed one RTS Appeal No. 348 of 2009 against mutation in favour of the complainant. However, such appeal was rejected by the Prant Officer on or about 01.07.2009 i.e. in the year 2009 itself.
2.4 It is further alleged in the complaint that thereby though accused Nos. 1 to 7 were aware that they do not have any right or title over the suit property, they have filed one Special Civil Suit No. 119 of 2009 before the Civil Court of Gandhinagar for declaration of their right and for injunction upon agricultural land. However, such suit has been dismissed on 14.12. 2010.
2.5 Thereafter, though accused Nos. 1 to 7 were aware about dismissal of such suit and non - existence of their right over the Page 3 of 19 R/CR.MA/17476/2014 CAV JUDGMENT agricultural land in question, on 28.02.2011 now accused Nos.1 to 7 have executed one power of attorney in favour of one Prakashbhai Ishwarbhai Nai though they are aware about existence of power of attorney deed in favour of accused No.1. It is further alleged that such power of attorney in favour of accused No.8 namely Prakashbhai Ishwarbhai Nai was with clear intention that he would tress pass the agricultural land with help of headstrong people and will encroach upon it to disturb the right, title and possession of the complainant. Thereby accused Nos. 1 to 8 have in conspiracy with each other executed one more power of attorney and based upon it, accused No. 8 has filed another suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 120 of 2011 before the same Civil Court at Gandhinagar. Though such suit was pending on the date of complaint, ultimately that suit was also dismissed in the year 2014. it is further contended in the complaint that since price of the land has gone high, accused have conspired to snatch away and grab the land.
2.6 It is further alleged in the complaint that though above referred two power of attorneys are in existence and though they were executed by accused Nos. 1 to 7, again on 18.03.2011 i.e. just in 18 days from the previous power of attorney deed dated 28.02.2011, accused Nos. 1 to/and 4 have executed one another power of attorney in favour of accused No.9 namely Vijaybhai Baldevbhai Patel. With help of that power of attorney, such Vijaybhai Baldevbhai Patel has filed another RTS Appeal No. 1 of 2011 which was pending on the date of filing of such complaint. However, same was dismissed in the year 2014.
2.7 It is further alleged in the FIR that all the accused have created different power of attorney deeds in favour of each other though knowing fully well that none of them have any right or title whatsoever Page 4 of 19 R/CR.MA/17476/2014 CAV JUDGMENT in the agricultural land in question but with a view to grab the land, they use such power of attorney deed in different proceedings before government offices as well as before the Court and they have also given a threat to the complainant to vacate the possession of the land in question and to hand it over to them and thereby all the accused have committed punishable offences.
2.8 It is further contended that though such complaint was submitted on 05.04.2013, the investigating agency has failed to lodge an FIR and to investigate the offence alleged in it and, therefore, complainant has to forward a written complaint to the D.S.P., Gandhinagar on 29.04.2013.
However, when no steps were taken by the investigating agency even thereafter, complainant has no option but to file complaint before the JMFC, Gandhinagar, who has ultimately directed the investigating agency being Adalaj Police Station to register the offence and investigate the offence with a further direction to file the report and outcome of investigation within 30 days. Thereby, Adalaj Police Station has registered M. Case No. 1 of 2013, but failed to chase the investigation for the reasons best known to them, which has resulted into multi - litigation before the trial Court, Sessions Court as well as before this High Court.
2.9 Though every litigant has a right to agitate his legitimate claim or to protect his legal right by initiating appropriate proceedings, many a times none or improper action by the investigating agency unnecessarily increase litigations and it hampers the entire judicial system when Courts are other - wise flooded with sufficient litigations. Now, it is high time to control such litigations which can certainly be avoided by proper action, at the end of concerned authorities as well as litigants Page 5 of 19 R/CR.MA/17476/2014 CAV JUDGMENT themselves.
3. In any case when FIR is lodged against all the accused name in the complaint dated 05.04.2013 as discussed herein above,l the accused had rushed to the Court to avoid their arrest by filing application for bail.
3.1 Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 who are applicant in Cr.M.A. No. 18263 of 2014 at present have filed bail application before the Court of JMFC, Gandhinagar on 16.11.2013. However, learned Magistrate has considering facts and circumstances of the case, rejected the application for bail.
3.2 Meanwhile may be because of inaction or lethargy by the investigating agency, complainant has preferred Special Criminal Application (Transfer of Investigation) No. 3642 of 2013, wherein the co
- ordinate bench of this High Court (Coram: G. R. Udhwani, J.) has on 03.12.2013 directed to investigate the offences by the Inspector General of Police of the Gandhinagar. It seems that even thereafter there was investigation for 5 to 6 months.
3.3 In between applicant of Cr. M. A. No. 17476 of 2014 namely Nirav Dilipbhai Patel has filed an application for anticipatory bail being Cr.M.A. No. 158 of 2014 before the Sessions Court, Gandhinagar apprehending his arrest because he has identified the signature of one of the accused in one of the power of attorney, which are referred herein above. Similarly, accused Nos.1 to 3 has also preferred bail application before the Sessions Court being Cr.M.A. No. 718 of 2013.
Page 6 of 19 R/CR.MA/17476/2014 CAV JUDGMENT4. Since, we are dealing with the application of accused Nos. 1 to 3 and Nirav Dilipbhai Patel, details of other accused are being avoided to reproduce here.
5. The Sessions Court, Gandhinagar has while granting the bail in favour of accused Nos. 1 to 3 by judgment and order dated 22.11.2013 and also while granting anticipatory bail in favour of Nirav Dilipbhai Patel in Cr.M.A. No. 158 of 2013 on 04.03.2014 imposed certain conditions for granting bail, amongst those only three conditions are relevant at present which are to the effect that; (1) accused have to co - operate the police in its investigation, (2) applicant - accused have to disclose their residential address before the trial Court and shall not change the same and in case of change in residential address new address is again to be disclosed before the trial Court immediately. Thereby not to change the address without permission of the trial Court and (3) to surrender the passport within 7 days or to file an affidavit if not possessing the passport (such condition is only in case of accused Nos. 1 to 3 and not in the case of Nirav Patel), with some other conditions, which are not relevant at present. The trial court has also directed that all such conditions are to be strictly complied with and breach of any of such conditions would result into the appropriate steps by the complainant and (in case of Nirav Patel, bail and in addition in case of accused Nos.1 to 3 of automatic cancellation of bail).
5.1 It seems that none of the applicant has ever bothered to comply with such conditions of bail which is otherwise simple in nature i.e. discloser of their addresses before the trial Court and to cooperate the police investigation. As already observed in order and judgment dated 17.09.2014 in Special Criminal Application (for cancellation of bail) No. Page 7 of 19 R/CR.MA/17476/2014 CAV JUDGMENT 2756 of 2014 between the parties that accused have not bothered to comply with the conditions by appropriate mode even by sending a letter to the Investigating agency about remaining present as and when call upon and to cooperate with the investigation and similar discloser before the trial Court in M. Case, where trial Court has passed an order for investigation. There is a reason to say so because one of the accused
- Nishukumar Amratbhai Patel is an advocate, who has opted not to argue his application being Cr.M.A. No. 18007 of 2014 with these two application on the ground that he has to challenge previous order of rejection of Cr.M.A. (For Review) No. 16678 of 2014 before Honourable the Supreme Court. Thereby it would be appropriate at least to disclose their whereabouts both before the trial Court and to the Investigating Officer.
5.2 However, at present we are concerned with the regular bail of the applicants since their earlier bail has been cancelled by this Court by judgment and order dated 17.09.2014 in Special Criminal Applications (for quashing) Nos. 2756 of 2014, 984 of 2014, 3992 of 2014, 5027 of 2014, when complainant has preferred such application for cancellation of bail against different accused on different grounds including merits of the granting bail and non - compliance of order of bail, as aforesaid.
5.3 However, it seems that certain directions of such judgment and order dated 17.09.2014 are either misinterpreted or misunderstand or interpreted in particular manner by particular parties of both the sides and difference of opinion has lead to second round of applications in the form of present bail application.
5.4 If we peruse such judgment and order dated 17.09.2014, it is very Page 8 of 19 R/CR.MA/17476/2014 CAV JUDGMENT much clear that bail was cancelled mainly for the reasons of non - compliance of Court's directions by the concerned accused with an observations that thereby accused shall surrender and thereafter they may apply regular bail. Thus, if they are entitled to bail, the concerned Court shall not hesitate to grant the same only because of cancellation of previous bail order.
5.5 Unfortunately some of the applicants have invited trouble for themselves by filing petition to review the judgment and order dated 17.09.2014 so as to get suitable directions for their surrender. Such review applications are dismissed, considering the provisions of section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that judgment cannot be reviewed except for clerical and arithmetic error or mistake.
5.6 Thereupon applicants have surrendered before the Sessions Court and Sessions court has sent them to judicial custody and thereby applicants are in jail at present. The accused Nos.1 to 3 has preferred Cr.M.A. No. 868 of 2014, which was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Gandhinagar by its judgment and order dated 22.10.2014 hence accused Nos. 1 to 3 have preferred present Cr.M.A. No. 18263 of 2014 for their regular bail.
5.7 Similarly, Nirav Dilipbhai Patel has preferred Cr.M.A. No. 862 of 2014 before the Sessions Court, Gandhinagar which is also rejected by judgment and order dated 22.10.2014 by the same Court of Gandhinagar and hence Nirav D. Patel has preferred an application for regular bail being present Cr.M.A. No. 17476 of 2014.
6. Before proceedings further to decide that whether any of such Page 9 of 19 R/CR.MA/17476/2014 CAV JUDGMENT accused is entitled to bail or not, it would be appropriate to deal with the contentions by the investigating agency as well as the complainant since they are not only opposing the bail application on merits of complaint, but also, on the ground of conduct of the accused and also challenged the jurisdiction of this Court to deal with such application. For the purpose, they are relying upon following citations:
(1) Gurucharan Singh vs. State of Delhi reported in AIR 1978 SC 179 = (1978) 1 SCC 118.
(2) Panki vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1996 (2) WLL 313 = 1997 (1) WLC (Raj) 647 6.1 Learned advocate for the complainant has vehemently argued that pursuant to the observations and decision by Honourable the Supreme Court in such case, when there is an order to surrender by the accused before the police in judgment and order dated 17.09.2014 by this Court, now accused has to surrender before the police only and thereafter to follow the proper channel for filing bail application i.e. right from the Court of Magistrate and not directly from the Sessions Court. Thereby it is submitted that surrendering of the applicant before the Sessions Court on 07.10.2014 and filing bail application before the Sessions Court on the same day itself, is not permissible under law and, therefore, this Court cannot entertain present bail applications.
6.2 So far as case of Panki (supra) is concerned, it is a judgment by the equivalent bench i.e. Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court and that to of the year 1996 and it is mainly based and relied upon the case of Guracharan Singh (supra), irrespective of any specific observations Page 10 of 19 R/CR.MA/17476/2014 CAV JUDGMENT in that judgment, since the judgment of Gurucharan Singh (supra) is not relevant for the situation on hand and such judgment would not help the complainant/prosecution to arrive at a conclusion that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such bail application. However, even after we consider the observations in such reported case, in my opinion, the conclusion in such reported case that legitimately the High Court and the Court of Sessions will be approached by an accused only after failure before the Magistrate under Section 437 of Code of Criminal Procedure is against criminal jurisprudence, which stand in force as on date, for the simple reason that, if we follow such findings then provisions of Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure become null and void, wherein there is an ample power vested to the High Court and the Court of Sessions to direct the release of a person on bail in the event of his arrest where any person has reason to believe on execution of having been committed on nonbailable offence. Thereby, if we believe the aforesaid two judgments then it seems that no one has a right to apply for the anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sessions Court or High Court. However, at present we are concerned with the findings with reference to Section 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Probably, therefore, when there is a finding with reference to Section 437 and 439 in aforesaid citations, it is submitted by the prosecution/complainant that accused must first surrender before the Magistrate and that ordinarily at the first instance bail application is to be moved before the Court of Magistrate as envisaged under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Gurucharan Singh (supra) is to the effect that, it is, however, legitimate to suppose that both the High Court or the Court of Sessions will be approached by an accused only after he has failed before the Magistrate and after investigation has practiced thereunder under the light on the evidence implicating the accused in Page 11 of 19 R/CR.MA/17476/2014 CAV JUDGMENT the offence.
6.3 It seems that in case of Panki (supra) also same situation was arising when Single Judge has initially directed the Magistrate to decide the case expeditiously on merits. However, in that case while dismissing the petition for quashing the FIR, the Single Judge has directed the accused to surrender before the Magistrate and, therefore, it has been decided in such reported case that initially accused has to surrender before the Magistrate and then he has to file an application for bail only before the Magistrate and he cannot file an application for bail directly before the Sessions Court when accused has challenged order of Sessions Court refusing to entertain his bail application pursuant to direction by the High Court while dismissing the application for quashing of FIR.
7. In the case of Gurucharan Singh (supra), the issue is regarding cancellation of bail of the accused, whereas now at present we are dealing with the bail application of the accused once their previous bail was cancelled with certain directions by judgement and order dated 17.09.2014 in Special Criminal Application Nos. 2756/2014 with 984/2014 with Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 3992/2014 with 5027/2014. Therefore, the basic difference in such reported case is that it was first round for cancellation of bail, whereas in our case applicant has to comply with the direction of this Court in judgement and order dated 17.09.2014. Thereby, difference is to follow the provision of law independently and to follow a specific directions by the High Court after detail order dated 17.09.2014. Thereby, in my opinion, though directions of the High Court are to be followed in accordance with law only, when High Court has directed to some extent, considering the facts and circumstance and evidence on record, for a specific steps, such Page 12 of 19 R/CR.MA/17476/2014 CAV JUDGMENT directions are to be followed rather than entering into other technicalities. If we perused judgement of Gurucharan Singh (supra) that complainant/prosecution relying upon a particular line from the entire judgement before following such lines considering it as an obetor dicta, the other details and discussion in the said judgment is necessary to be looked into . Thereby it cannot be ignored that in such reported case, the fact was to the effect that pending trial as many as six witnesses do not support the prosecution case but given statements in favour of the accused and when their statements were recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Magistrate, same six eye witnesses who made discrepant statements and had supported the defence version, at one stage, explained that some of the accused had pressurized them to make such statements in favour of the defence and, even thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge has released the accused on bail contending that there is little to gain by the accused by tampering the witnesses, who have themselves tempered by making contradictory statements. Therefore, decision in such case is basically rest upon the typical facts before the Court.
8. Whereas so far as observations with regard to jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and High Court to entertain bail application is concerned, it seems that, after considering the factual details when Honourable Supreme Court has to confirm the cacellation of bail by the High Court discussing the provisions of sections of new code with old Code of Criminal Procedure when the words, "brought before a Court" in Section 437 in the old code has been changed to "brought before the Court other than High Court or the Court of Sessions" in new code. Therefore, the fact remains that such position would be applicable if accused is being "brought before the Court" by the investigating agency during the investigation and thereby said conditions could not be strictly applied to Page 13 of 19 R/CR.MA/17476/2014 CAV JUDGMENT the accused, who is specifically directed to appear before a specific Court by order dated 17.09.2014. It is sufficient to reproduce the observations in same case of Gurucharan Singh (supra) from para 16 which reads as under:
"This restriction upon the power of entertainment of an application for committing a person, already admitted to bail, to custody, is lifted in the new Code u/s. 439(2). U/s. 439(2) of the new Code a High Court may commit a person released on bail under Chapter XXXII by any Court including the Court of Sessions to custody, if it thinks appropriate to do so."
9. It is to be recollected here that in case on hand the situation is similar to the above observations, in as much as, all the applicants were practically granted bail initially by the Sessions Court on 22.11.2013 and 04.03.2014 and they are not brought to the Court by the police. Therefore, it cannot be said that when High Court has specifically directed the accused to surrender before the Sessions Court, the Sessions Court has no jurisdiction but entertained and in turn this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such bail application, when Sessions Court has refused to grant bail of such accused.
10. Whereas, so far as applicants of Criminal Misc. Application No. 18263 of 2014 are concerned, they have already been arrested by the police, they have filed bail application before the Magistrate, which was rejected and, thereafter, they have filed bail application before the Sessions Court and that order was cancelled because of non - compliance of same directions and hence when the High Court has by an order dated 17.09.2014 directed them to surrender before the Sessions Court, now it cannot be said thereafter to again file an application for bail before the Court of Magistrate.
Page 14 of 19 R/CR.MA/17476/2014 CAV JUDGMENT11. In any case, it cannot be ignored that cancellation of bail order would placed accused in the same state on the date of filing of application for bail, more particularly non - compliance is to some extent technical in non disclosing their addresses before the Court in time. However, I will deal with merits of the application herein after.
12. One more aspect is necessary to recollect here while dealing with the issue regarding jurisdiction and application of the decision of Gurucharan Singh (supra). It has been submit and disclosed at bar that after applicant - accused have surrendered before the Sessions Court on 17.10.2014, that complainant has preferred Special Criminal Application Nos. 4608 of 2014 and 4609 of 2014 and challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 17.10.2014 by the learned Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar on an application by applicant - accused to surrender before that Court. Both such special criminal applications were disposed of by judgement and order dated 01.12.2014 by coordinate bench (J. B. Pardiwala, J.) in common judgment with Special Criminal Application No. 3642 of 2013 for transfer the investigation. Wherein surrender of accused before Sessions Court on 17.10.2014 has been confirmed by the Co - ordinate bench. Though both the sides are relying upon same observations from the said judgment, which are in their favour, the ultimate result and facts remain that jurisdiction of the Sessions Court to allow the applicant to surrender before it pursuant to judgment and order dated 17.09.2014 by this Court has not been disturbed even though judgment of Gurucharan Singh (supra) was cited.
13. In any case, the co - ordinate bench has dealt with the issue regarding surrender before the Sessions Court but did not quash such order and for the reasons stated herein above, it cannot be said that the Sessions Court has no jurisdiction to except the surrender of the Page 15 of 19 R/CR.MA/17476/2014 CAV JUDGMENT applicant - accused and to decide the bail application afresh pursuant to direction dated 17.09.2014 and when their subsequent bail applications have been rejected by the Sessions Court, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such bail application because of the decision of Gurucharan Singh (supra).
14. Then comes the issue regarding bail. Whether applicant - accused are entitled to bail solely on the merits of the case. Irrespective of all issues raised till date, for which, practically applicant themselves are responsible, in as much as, initially they were failed to comply with the order to disclose their whereabouts and to co - operate the investigating agency. It is surprising to note that initially complainant was complaining about non - action by the investigating agency in not submitting the report of investigation in time and not praying for cancellation of bail for breach of conditions by the accused. Therefore complainant has filed an application being Special Criminal Application No.3642 of 2013 for transferring of investigation wherein, this Court has to direct the higher level officer of the rank of IGP to look into the matter. Thereafter now investigation is being carried out by an officer of the Dy.S.P. rank rather than an officer in charge of the police station, may be police inspector. But now accused are also complaining about inaction on the part of the investigating agency in not calling the accused for investigation and thereby to complete the investigation at the earliest. It seems that after such grievances, now investigating agency has applied for custodial interrogation, but so far as accused Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, since they were already interrogated in police custody the concerned Magistrate has granted interrogation in the judicial custody so far as Nirav D. Patel is concerned.
14.1 Though both the sides have argued at length and though same Page 16 of 19 R/CR.MA/17476/2014 CAV JUDGMENT issues are being dealt with in Special Criminal Application No. 4608 of 2014 by the co - ordinate bench at present, what is necessary to check is only a limited question that whether applicants are entitled to bail or not. For such consideration we have to follow the settled legal position which confirms that bail can be granted if there is no need of an accused for further investigation, nothing is to be recovered, there is no possibility of tampering the evidence, there is no possibility of commission of similar offence by the accused. In light of the settled legal position for granting bail, if we consider the available record, the fact remains that maximum punishment that can be awarded to the accused is 10 years and commission of offence is basically on paper and that to in the form of filing different litigations. It is also clear and obvious that even after all such attempt accused could not get any benefit from such activity and, therefore, practically there is no direct loss to the complainant, in as much as, none of his property has been disturbed. Therefore, when at present it is not advisable to scrutinize the available record, it is sufficient to record that it is not the case, where bail should be refused only because previous disobedience of conditions of bail, as it is done by the Sessions Court in impugned judgment. The Sessions Court has failed to consider that for such breach, accused are already punished by cancelling their bail and they are sent to the judicial custody. Thereafter, now bail application is to be decided on merits of the complaint and not on the merits of the different proceedings except considering that applicants are prone to disobey the Court's order. However, to get rid of such position, there may be a strict condition, but refusal of bail would certainly be improper and unreasonable. For the aforesaid reasons, all the relevant information that brought on record are not required to be disclosed at this stage, which would other - wise prejudice the investigation and trial. The fact remains that all such information is very well available on record both before investigating Page 17 of 19 R/CR.MA/17476/2014 CAV JUDGMENT agency and before the Sessions Court and hence not required to be reproduced or disclosed, at this stage.
15. In view of above facts and circumstance, bail applications are allowed. Applicants are ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing solvent surety of Rs. 2,00,000/ (Rupees Two Lacs Only) each, to the satisfaction of the trial Court and on following conditions, that they shall;
(1)disclosed details not only about their whereabouts, but also about their properties and earning activities, so as to confirm and secure their presence as and when necessary and not change the address without prior permission of the trial Court. Such discloser with undertaking shall be filed with bail bond itself.
(2) mark their presence before the Investigating Officer, twice in a week till filing of the charge - sheet. It would be appropriate for the Investigating Officer to disclose before the concerned Court, if at all presence of any of the accused is not required at any stage. On such discloser before the concerned trial Court, present condition shall stand waived in respect of that particular accused.
(3) surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week or to file an affidavit that he is not having any passport and shall not apply for the same without permission of the Court.
(4) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Trial Court;
16. Application is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
Page 18 of 19 R/CR.MA/17476/2014 CAV JUDGMENT(S.G.SHAH, J.) drashti Page 19 of 19