Gujarat High Court
Avniben Dharmeshbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 2 May, 2022
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
R/CR.MA/6482/2015 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6482 of 2015
In
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 19063 of 2014
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6502 of 2015
==========================================================
AVNIBEN DHARMESHBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR EKANT G AHUJA(5323) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HRIDAY BUCH(2372) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR.L.B.DABHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 02/05/2022
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. The present application has been filed seeking cancellation and setting aside the order of bail granted under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2014 in Criminal Misc. Application No.19063 of 2014 in favour of the respondent No.2 - husband of the applicant, alleging that the respondent accused has breached the conditions imposed by this Court by administering threats to the victim / complainant.
2. Learned advocate Mr.Ahuja, appearing for the applicant has submitted that the respondent No.2 has misused his liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2014, in which, the respondent has violated the condition Nos.(c) and
(d). He has submitted that the respondent No.2 - accused was not supposed to enter in the jurisdiction of Navrangpura Police Page 1 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu May 05 20:31:08 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/6482/2015 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2022 Station, however, he had come to meet his two minor children viz., Aastha and Kathit and, the respondent No.2 had also threatened the present applicant. Further, it is submitted that as there is violation of condition No.(d) also, since the respondent No.2 had threatened the applicant, and hence, an FIR was registered on 18.03.2015 under the provisions of Section 507 of the Indian Penal Code being CR-I No.3041 of 2015 before the Navrangpura Police Station. Learned advocate Mr.Ahuja, has further submitted that another FIR being CR-I No.166 of 2016 has been registered at Navrangpura Police Station in respect to the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and, hence, the anticipatory bail, which was granted by this Court may be cancelled.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Hriday Buch, appearing for the respondent No.2 accused has submitted that there is no violation of conditions as mentioned in the application. He has submitted that so far as the offence for violation of the first condition i.e. Condition No.(c) is concerned, learned advocate has submitted that an FIR being CR-I No.166 of 2016 is concerned, the offence pertains to the year 2013-2014, which is prior to the grant of anticipatory bail by this Court and in those proceedings, since the respondent No.2 - accused wanted to settle the dispute and being a father of the minor children - Aastha and Kathit, he intended to meet their minor children and went to the house of the applicant. Thus, he has submitted that such an allegation, even if it assumed, is correct, cannot be termed as a grave violation in order to cancel the anticipatory bail of the applicant. He has submitted that so far as the offence registered under the provision of Page 2 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu May 05 20:31:08 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/6482/2015 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2022 Section 507 of the IPC, is concerned, the same is registered with Navrangpura Police Station being CR-I No.3041 of 2015, and the respondent is arraigned as an accused along with two other persons and it is alleged that he has sent those two accused to threaten the present applicant. Learned advocate Mr.Buch, has submitted that the respondent has been released on bail in all the offences. Thus, it is submitted that after the respondent was released on regular bail by the Trial Court for the offences under Section 465, 466 and 467, on 13.01.2015, the present FIR was registered for cancelling the bail within a short period. It is submitted that there are series of dispute going between the respondent No.2 and the present applicant. Learned advocate Mr.Buch has further submitted that the trial is already in progress and three witnesses are examined and thereafter, no FIR is registered against the respondent No.2, except which are narrated hereinabove.
4. I have heard the learned advocates for respective parties. I have also perused the relevant documents.
5. The captioned application being Criminal Misc. Application No.6482 of 2015 has been filed seeking cancellation and setting aside of anticipatory bail granted by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2014 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.19063 of 2014 for the reason that the respondent No.2 - accused has violated two conditions being Nos.(c) and (d) of the order.
5.1 Condition No.(c) of the order mentions that the respondent accused shall give an undertaking to the effect that he shall not enter in the jurisdiction of Navrangpura Police Page 3 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu May 05 20:31:08 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/6482/2015 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2022 Station. The applicant, in order to get the anticipatory bail cancelled of the respondent accused, has placed reliance on the evidence made by the respondent accused in Criminal Misc. Application No.33 of 2016 filed under the Guardian and Wards Act, wherein he has stated that being a father he had gone to meet his minor children viz., Aastha and Kathit, at the house of the applicant and he was threatened by her. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid meeting of the respondent accused with his minor children on one occasion, would not be a serious violation of conditions since, he being a father had only visited his children.
5.2 So far the second condition i.e. Condition No.(d) is concerned, it is mentioned in the order that he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. The applicant has placed reliance on the FIR registered by her for the offence under Section 507 of the IPC, being CR-I No.3041 of 2015 registered with Navrangpura Police Station. On perusal of the said FIR it reveals that the respondent is arraigned as an accused No.3 and it is alleged that the accused nos.1 and 2 had called her to withdraw the case against the accused. The main allegations are against the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The respondent No.2 has been granted bail in the said offence.
6. After the aforesaid offence was registered in the year 2015, nothing adverse is pointed out against the respondent no.2. The trial is in progress and thus, this Court is not inclined to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No.2 Page 4 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu May 05 20:31:08 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/6482/2015 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2022 after a period of seven years. The present application, therefore, deserves to be rejected and the same is rejected accordingly. Notice is discharged.
ORDER IN CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.6502 OF 2015
1. The captioned application has been filed setting aside the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.13, dated 13.01.2015 granting regular bail to the respondent No.2
- accused under the provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 466 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Learned advocate Mr.Ahuja, appearing for the applicant has submitted that the respondent No.2 - accused, after the release on regular bail vide order dated 13.01.2015, has committed an offence under Section 507 of the Indian Penal Code, which was registered before the Navrangpura Police Station on 18.03.2015 wherein, the respondent accused is arraigned as an accused No.3 and it is alleged that the accused Nos.1 and 2 have threatened the applicant on telephone to withdraw her case against the respondent No.2. Thus, he has submitted that the bail given by the concerned Court may be cancelled.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Buch, appearing for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the said FIR is filed with an oblique motive by naming two individuals Mustaq and Aejaj and the respondent is not concerned with them and is released on bail. It is submitted that after the said alleged offence, there is no Page 5 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu May 05 20:31:08 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/6482/2015 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2022 further FIR is registered against the respondent No.2. It is submitted that the trial is already in progress and is at the stage of evidence of prosecution.
4. The cancellation of regular bail is sought on the ground of registration of FIR against the respondent by the applicant for the offence under Section 507 of the IPC. It is alleged that on the behest of the respondent, the two accused named in the FIR, had threatened the applicant on telephone to withdraw the case filed by her against the respondent accused. After the aforesaid offence was registered in the year 2015, nothing is pointed out adverse against the respondent no.2. The trial is in progress and thus this Court is not inclined to cancel the regular bail granted to the respondent after a period of eight years. The present application, therefore, deserves to be rejected and the same is rejected accordingly. Notice is discharged.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) MAHESH BHATI/01 Page 6 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu May 05 20:31:08 IST 2022