Hiteshbhai Sumanbhai Parekh vs State Of Gujarat on 9 January, 2015

[Cites 10, Cited by 9]

Gujarat High Court

Hiteshbhai Sumanbhai Parekh vs State Of Gujarat on 9 January, 2015

Bench: J.B.Pardiwala

        R/CR.MA/588/2015                                ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL ) NO. 588 of
                                2015
===========================================================
           HITESHBHAI SUMANBHAI PAREKH....Applicant(s)
                            Versus
                STATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK A DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
Mr.K.L.Pandya, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
        CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
                     Date : 09/01/2015


                           ORAL ORDER

Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.K.L.Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent -State.

By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-original accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered at CR No. I- 83/2014 before the Sachin Police Station, G.I.D.C., Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 114 of the IPC. Thereafter, vide report dated 25th November, 2014, the Investigating Officer has added Sections 465, 467, 471, 474, 120- B of IPC .

Page 1 of 5

R/CR.MA/588/2015 ORDER The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant would submit that considering the nature of offence, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions.

On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has opposed this application and granting anticipatory bail to the applicant looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, perused the investigation papers and have also taken into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the applicant-accused and without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. as reported at [2011] 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors., as reported at (1980) 2 SCC 665.

The learned Advocate for the applicant on Page 2 of 5 R/CR.MA/588/2015 ORDER instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions, including impositions of conditions with regard to the powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent court for his remand. He would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open.

In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest of the applicant herein in connection with the FIR registered before the Sachin Police Station, G.I.D.C., Surat vide C.R. No. I-83/2014, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety of the like amount on the following conditions that he shall:

(a) cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;

(b) remain present at the concerned Police Station on 15.1.2015 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

(c) 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/them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Page 3 of 5 R/CR.MA/588/2015 ORDER police officer;

(d) not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

(e) at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change his residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders;

(f) not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport, shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; and

(g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would decide the same on merits;

Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for Police remand of the applicant. The applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted, and the power of the learned Page 4 of 5 R/CR.MA/588/2015 ORDER Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicant, even if, remanded to the Police custody, upon completion of such period of Police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order.

At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima-facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) bina Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court