Gujarat High Court
Salim vs State on 20 June, 2012
Author: J.C.Upadhyaya
Bench: J.C.Upadhyaya
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/5989/2012 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 5989 of 2012
=========================================================
SALIM
@ BABA ALIMOHAMMED VORA - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MRUGEN K PUROHIT for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR. M.G.NANAVATI, APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 20/06/2012
ORAL
ORDER
1. The instant application is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Ahmedabad DCB Police Station, Crime Branch, CR No. I-15 /2011 regarding offences punishable under sections 406, 420, and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Mr. N.D.Nanavati, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. M.H.Purohit, learned advocate representing the applicant, at the out set, drew my attention to the relevant part of the FIR and submitted that in the FIR, the applicant-accused is not specifically named. It is further submitted that in the FIR, no role is attributed to the applicant. My attention was also drawn to the order passed by the Sessions Court, whereby the anticipatory bail application was rejected and it is submitted that Sessions Court has observed that the applicant was principal agent of the main accused - Mr. Abhay Gandhi. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact, the applicant was an employee in the firm of the main accused-Mr. Abhay Gandhi and in the FIR, no role is attributed to the applicant. Mr. N.D. Nanavati, learned senior counsel submitted that in the instant matter, co-accused - Abdul Jabbar Ansari has been released on bail by trial Court. Mr. Nanavati further submitted that as a matter of fact, even the applicant himself sustained loss in the incident and he can be said to be one of the victims. It is further submitted that there is no allegation that the applicant was canvasing the business of the main accused - Mr. Abhay Gandhi. It is further submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, application may be allowed and the applicant shall co-operate the investigating police agency.
3. Mr. M.G.Nanavati, learned APP for the respondent-state vehemently opposed this application and submitted that during the course of investigation, the investigating police officer has recorded statements of witnesses, who in their statements stated that the applicant was the main agent. It is further submitted that considering the nature of offence, the custodial investigation is also required. It is, therefore, submitted that application may be dismissed.
4. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, the relevant contents of the FIR, observations made by the Sessions Court in the order rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the applicant, so also considering the fact that co-accused has been released on bail in this matter as well as considering the relevant papers, this Court is of the opinion that subject to imposing appropriate conditions, application deserves to be granted. 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.
5. Learned counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.
6. In the result, this application is allowed by directing that in the event of the applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR being CR No.I-15 of 2011 with Ahmedabad DCB Police Station, Crime Branch, 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 30.6.2012 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] It would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand, if he considers it just and proper and the concerned Magistrate would decide it on merits.
[g] 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 applicants, 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.
7. For modification and/or deletion of any of the conditions herein above, the applicant/s will be at liberty to approach the concerned Court and such Court shall decide the application for modification and/or deletion of any of the conditions of this order in accordance with law.
8. 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.
9. Rule made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly.
10. Direct service is permitted.
[J.C.UPADHYAY, J.] cmj/ Top