Gujarat High Court
Ashokkumar Chandgiram Chaudhari vs State Of Gujarat on 29 October, 2014
Author: G.R.Udhwani
Bench: G.R.Udhwani
R/CR.MA/17306/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL ) NO. 17306
of 2014
================================================================
ASHOKKUMAR CHANDGIRAM CHAUDHARI....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH B DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HK PATEL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR SHAKEEL A QURESHI, ADVOCATE for the original complainant
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI
Date : 29/10/2014
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Respondents waive service.
2. The petitioner, a bank employee is sought to be arrested in connection with the offences punishable under Sections 306, 304 B, 498A of the Indian Penal Code registered in the form of FIR being IC.R.No.90 of 2014 at B Division Police Station, Junagadh.
3. Having considered the rival contentions, it appears that marriage span of the deceased, the wife of the petitioner was only three months. During the said period, the deceased appears to have been taken to Doctor including psychiatrist, whose statements have been recorded by the Investigating Agency. Such statements prima facie rule out the possibility of the sufferance of the deceased of a psychiatric problem. The statements also prima facie indicate that she complained even to the Doctors about lack of cordial relations of her husband with her. The postmortem report indicates bodily injury on the person of the deceased. Undisputedly, she was at her inlaws house at the time of incident in question and injuries on her Page 1 of 2 R/CR.MA/17306/2014 ORDER person would prima facie indicate the physical torture meted out to her immediately before the incident in question and thus, the presumption under Section 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 498A of Indian Penal Code gets attracted. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also relied upon other various statements including that of the brother of the deceased, who claims that the deceased had shown to him the injuries on her person. He also claims to have recorded the incriminating conversation between the deceased and the petitioner. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would argue that since the serious material against the petitioner exists and the investigation is at crucial stage, this Court may not exercise the discretionary power under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. The above material would indicate that prima facie, a serious case is made out against the petitioner. Merely because at some point of time, the deceased was taken to Doctors including psychiatrist, no clean chit at this stage can be given to the petitioner, particularly, when the Doctors in no uncertain terms state that during conversation, they did not find any psychiatric problem with the deceased.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be necessary since the recordings made by the brother of the deceased are sent for FSL examination and spectrography test of the petitioner would be necessary.
6. In above view of the matter, no substance is found in the application, hence rejected. Rule discharged. Interim order stands vacated.
(G.R.UDHWANI, J.) Amar Page 2 of 2