Gujarat High Court
Narendra Sharma & vs State Of on 15 May, 2013
Author: A.J.Desai
Bench: A.J.Desai
NARENDRA SHARMAV/SSTATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s) R/CR.MA/6795/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL ) NO. 6795 of 2013 ================================================================ NARENDRA SHARMA & 3....Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR SUDHIR NANAVATI SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR PREMAL S RACHH, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 4 MR HK PATEL ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI Date : 15/05/2013 ORAL ORDER
1.0 Heard Mr. Sudhir Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Premal Rachh, learned Advocate appearing for the applicants and Mr. HK Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent for the respondent State.
2.0 This application has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for transit bail in connection with the F.I.R. registered as C.R. No. I-229 of 2013 with Bandhikui Police Station, Dist. Dausa, Rajasthan for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 406 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
Mr. Sudhir Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Rachh, learned advocate appearing for the applicants submitted that the applicants are the residents of the Ahmedabad and the distance between these two cities is more than 700 kms. He would submit that as per the decision of this Court in the case of Neela J. Shah V. State of Gujarat reported in 1998 1 G.L.H. 594 (Coram :
Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.N. Mathur as his Lordship then was), Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Nirbhay Singh and another V. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1995 CRI. L.J. 3317, decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Akhalaq Ahmed F. Patel V. State of Maharashtra reported in 1998 CRI. L.J. 3969 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra Saxena V. State of Rajasthan reported in (2010) 1 SCC 684 where it is held that powers under Section 438 with regard to grant of anticipatory bail can be exercised after either summons or warrant is issued by the Magistrate and even in a successive anticipatory bail. In view of the above decisions, it is submitted that the applicants would take appropriate course of action in accordance with law before the competent Court but meanwhile, their freedom and liberty as enshrined under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India may be protected. It is further submitted that the applicants are ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation and at this stage, this Court would only consider the case of the applicants for transitory bail.
4.0 Considering the above decisions and law laid down therein and by imposing suitable conditions, I am of the view that till the applicants approach the Court of competent jurisdiction, it is necessary that their freedom and liberty be protected by exercising powers in their favour and accordingly, transitory bail is granted to the applicants for a period of four (4) weeks from today and meanwhile, the applicants shall approach the competent Court having jurisdiction for further remedy in accordance with law.
5.0 This application is allowed to the aforesaid extent with a condition that the applicants shall approach the Court of competent jurisdiction within twenty Eight (28) days from today and till then the applicants shall not be arrested and applicants are accordingly, granted temporary transitory bail. It is made clear that if the applicants fail to comply with the above conditions and do not approach the Court of competent jurisdiction, the transit bail granted by this Court shall stand automatically cancelled. Direct Service is permitted.
(A.J.DESAI, J.) niru* Page 3 of 3