Gujarat High Court
Hiteshbhai Madhaji Vaghela(Thakor) vs State Of Gujarat on 27 June, 2019
Author: Umesh A. Trivedi
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
R/CR.A/1155/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1155 of 2019
==========================================================
HITESHBHAI MADHAJI VAGHELA(THAKOR)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR LAXMANSINH M ZALA(5787) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
PARIMALSINH J VAGHELA(8455) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR RASHESH RINDANI APP (2) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
SWETA A DAVE(8247) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 27/06/2019
ORAL ORDER
1. This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 6.5.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special), Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.1503 of 2019 whereby, regular bail application, preferred by the appellant in connection with offence registered at C.R.No.I-25 of 2019 registered with Bopal Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to 'IPC), as also under Section 3(a), 4, 5(L) and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), as also, under Section 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention) of Atrocities Act (herein after referred to as 'the Atrocities Act'), is rejected.
Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 29 00:09:19 IST 2019R/CR.A/1155/2019 ORDER 2. On issuance of rule, Mr.Laxmansinh Zala, learned
advocate for respondent No.2 appeared and this Court has heard the parties contesting this application for bail.
3. Following aspects are considered:
(a) Investigation into the offence is over and charge-
sheet is also filed as informed by the Investigating Officer who is present in the Court through learned APP, Mr.Rashesh Rindani.
(b) The age of the appellant is 19 years whereas, age of the victim is 17 years and 9 months. Therefore, it could be safely concluded that, she has already reached near the age of discretion.
(c) Looking at the statement of the victim herself, it is not the first occasion where she had voluntarily and willingly gone with the appellant but this is the third time where both had voluntarily and willingly eloped and had relations. Not only that both had consumed insecticides for ending their lives because they were madly in love with each other.
(d) Merely by asserting in the FIR that the appellant is married, there is no proof of the marriage of the appellant. Even considering this assertion and looking at the age of the appellant, there may be a possibility that a child marriage might have been performed as is known in common parlance.
Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 29 00:09:19 IST 2019R/CR.A/1155/2019 ORDER
4. Having considered the police papers and arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the parties, the case is made out at-least for regular bail pending the trial.
5. Hence, the appellant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with the aforesaid offences registered at C.R.No.I-25 of 2019 with Bopal Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code, as also under Section 3(a), 4, 5(L) and 6 of Prevention of Child From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), as also, under Section 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention) of Atrocities Act, on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;
[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;
[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;
[e] the appellant shall not enter territorial limits of Bopal Police Station till the victim is examined before the Court in the trial;
[f] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 29 00:09:19 IST 2019 R/CR.A/1155/2019 ORDER execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;
6. The Authorities will release the appellant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law. 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 appellant on bail.
7. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J) ASHISH M. GADHIYA Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 29 00:09:19 IST 2019