Shahrukh Abdulmiya Diwan vs State Of Gujarat on 4 April, 2019

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Shahrukh Abdulmiya Diwan vs State Of Gujarat on 4 April, 2019

Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi

       R/CR.MA/6609/2019                                         ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

      R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO.                    6609 of 2019

==========================================================
                      SHAHRUKH ABDULMIYA DIWAN
                                Versus
                          STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR IMTIYAZ I MANSURI(9159) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SUNILKUMAR V KATHERIA(10188) for the Applicant No. 1
MR LB DABHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

                            Date : 04/04/2019

                                  ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.

2. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.NO.I201 of 2016 registered with J.P.Road Police Station, Vadodara for offence under Sections 342, 364(b), 364(a), 397, 506(2), 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the G.P.Act.

3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged Page 1 of 5 R/CR.MA/6609/2019 ORDER on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

4. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

5. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

6. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

7. This Court has also considered the following aspects:

Applicant was released by this Court vide order dated 24.04.2017 in connection with the FIR in question. However, he did not remain present before the trail Court during the course of trial and therefore warrant is issued against him, pursuant to which he is arrested. Applicant filed an application Page 2 of 5 R/CR.MA/6609/2019 ORDER under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Sessions Court. However, the same is rejected. Learned advocate for the applicant, under the instructions of the applicant, submits that now applicant will remain present before the trial Court on every date of hearing and cooperate in trial. He shall also mark his presence before the concerned police station once in a month till the trial is over.

In view of the aforesaid, I am inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.

8. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40.

9. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.NO.I201 of 2016 registered with J.P.Road Police Station, Vadodara on executing a personal 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 Page 3 of 5 R/CR.MA/6609/2019 ORDER 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] mark presence before the concerned Police Station between 1st to 10th day of every English calendar month between 11:00 a.m. And 2:00 p.m. Till the completion of the trial;

[f] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;

[g] remain present before the trial Court on every date of hearing.

10. The authorities will release the applicant 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 Page 4 of 5 R/CR.MA/6609/2019 ORDER 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.

11. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.

12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J) Jani Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court