Gujarat High Court
Ajay vs State on 21 September, 2010
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla
Bench: Rajesh H.Shukla
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/10466/2010 27/ 27 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10466 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
==========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
==========================================
AJAY
HARIBHAI PATEL - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
==========================================
Appearance
:
MR JM PANCHAL with MR KB
ANANDJIWALA for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR PK JANI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR YN RAVANI for Respondent(s) :
2,
==========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 21/09/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
The present application has been filed by the applicant-original accused No. 17 for grant of anticipatory bail under sec. 438 of Criminal Procedure Code in connection with CBI Case No. RCBS1/2010/S0004-MUM registered with C.B.I., Mumbai for the alleged offences under sections 120(B), 364, 365, 368, 341, 342, 302, 384 and 201 of IPC.
2. Learned Counsel Mr. JM Panchal appearing with learned counsel Mr. Anandjiwala submitted that he would adopt the submissions canvassed by learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Uday Lalit for the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 10365 of 2010.
3. Learned Counsel Mr. Panchal, however, submitted that the first aspect he would refer to is the unfairness of the investigating agency inasmuch as he was served with the summons on 18.6.2010 and he went to the CBI office at Mumbai where he was interrogated. Learned Counsel Mr. Panchal submitted that there is no summons and he had gone to USA on 29.6.2010 and returned on 9.8.2010. In the meanwhile, the charge sheet was filed on 26.7.2010 and also the warrant came to be issued under sec. 70. Learned Counsel Mr. Panchal referred to the papers and an application made before the Court of Magistrate for issuance of non-bailable warrant and submitted that it was mere ipse dixit without any material to show that the petitioner has avoided or absconded.
4. Learned Counsel Mr. Panchal referred to the two reports and submitted that as required under the law, the summons has to be served. If it was not served, some intimation/endorsement could have been taken from the family members for the intimation or it could have been served by affixing. No such procedure has been followed and straightway the warrant came to be issued and thereafter it is sought to be argued that warrant has been issued under sec. 70. He further emphasised that the present applicant accused is also sought to be arraigned for the conspiracy or the main conspiracy regarding the incident of fake encounter which has taken place in 2005 and he is sought to be arraigned in such conspiracy in 2010 without any supporting material or evidence.
5. Learned Counsel Mr. Panchal submitted that a person could be involved in the conspiracy or accused of involvement in the conspiracy before or during the conspiracy or immediately thereafter, but there is no material or evidence to suggest about any kind of participation or involvement of the accused with the said incident or the so-called main conspiracy except the fact that the applicant accused, like the other co-accused, is said to have persuaded the witnesses to conceal from the CBI. Learned Counsel Mr. Panchal submitted that in fact he cannot be said to have influenced or persuaded inasmuch as there is no threat or temptation. He has only talked or discussed about the matter when the witnesses admittedly have talked to the accused in connection with their own pending cases with regard to the huge outstanding dues of the bank.
6. Learned Counsel Mr. Panchal also submitted that the statements of the two witnesses, Ramanbhai Patel and Dashratbhai Patel, recorded under sec. 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. even if accepted at the face value as it is and taking the case of CBI at the face value, will not suggest any involvement or participation of the accused in the conspiracy except meeting the witnesses and that too for talk for settlement of the pending cases against the witnesses. He emhasised and submitted with regard to the background of the witnesses that there were PASA as well as other cases including huge amounts of the bank itself which have been defaulted for which, on the contrary, the applicant was approached.
7. Learned Counsel Mr. Panchal, therefore, referred to the statements of the witnesses and submitted that, in fact, even the offence under sec. 201 of IPC would not be attracted and at the most it could be an offence under sec. 177 for giving false information to the public servant.
8. Learned Counsel Mr. Panchal, therefore, submitted that while considering the alleged involvement or participation in the main conspiracy, the court may also consider the time-lag as the incidence of fake encounter has taken place in 2005 and till 2010 the present applicant has not been even interrogated. There is nothing, not even a whisper by anybody, with regard to his involvement, and only in the year 2010 two witnesses, as stated above, when they met, there was a talk where the present applicant accused is said to have persuaded the witnesses to conceal from the CBI.
9. For that matter, again, Learned Counsel Mr. Panchal referred to the statements and referring to the statement of Ramanbhai Patel dated 27.3.2010 produced at page 89 (165) submitted that if it is closely considered, what the applicant has told is that he would not have interfered in the matter but since Jayeshbhai is father-in-law of my niece and he is a good friend of his, hence he had intervened in this matter. Learned counsel Mr. Panchal referred to the earlier part also to emphasise that what has been discussed is about the banking business matters and thereafter talk about Sohrabuddin and CBI was made where the applicant is said to have informed the witnesses that CBI would call them and they may be used by CBI for implicating others. Learned counsel Mr. Panchal therefore submitted that at the most it could be said to be his talk on this subject and asking or advising not to get involved in CBI matters which may lead to implicating others. He therefore submitted that the applicant is falsely implicated.
10. Learned counsel Mr. Panchal also submitted that except Para 38 the one line accusation which has been emphasized by learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Lalit in another matter, there is nothing to show the involvement or participation, much less any active participation by the applicant accused in the main conspiracy. Learned counsel Mr. Panchal therefore strenuously submitted that on one hand the charge sheet is filed with an accusation with regard to the involvement and the participation in the main conspiracy for which there is no material found in the entire charge sheet and on the other, while arguing this application, submissions are made that investigation is pending, only with a view to implicate the accused without any basis or foundation. Learned counsel Mr. Panchal submitted that even if the case of the prosecution-CBI is accepted at the face value in light of the two statements and the transcript of the video recording made, at the most it could be an offence under sec. 201 or sec. 177 and as the offence under sec. 201 is a bailable offence, they are sought to be roped in by connecting them for the so-called involvement in the main conspiracy after five years without any justification or material.
11. Learned counsel Mr. Panchal submitted that the offence with regard to the role attributed even in the charge sheet by the CBI referring to another Para 42 is for offence under sec 201 which is a bailable offence. The court below has therefore not considered the role or the evidence and therefore the present application has been filed which may be considered accepting the case of the prosecution at the face value.
12. Learned counsel Mr. Panchal further emphasized that the credibility of the two witnesses, on the basis of which the applicant is implicated, is also required to be considered that apart from their own default in huge amount of loan and other cases, even in this case they have in their statements clearly stated as to the amount which has been paid on a particular date. The witnesses have also stated that they are builders and they would maintain kachha note meaning thereby they are very particular about it and this itself is totally false as it could be proved by documentary evidence that the present applicant accused was abroad at that time for which the passport is also produced on record, meaning thereby that he was not present in India at all and therefore how there could be any payment of the amount by the witnesses. Therefore, learned counsel Mr. Panchal submitted that this application may be allowed.
13. Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned counsel appearing for the CBI-the investigating agency, submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has handed over the investigation to the CBI vide order dated 10.1.2010 and he referred to the directions, which have been referred to in the order passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, that a larger conspiracy is required to be investigated and extension has also been granted. Learned counsel Mr. Ravani submitted that, therefore, considering the limited scope of exercise of discretion under sec. 438 of CrPC, the court may not entertain this application when the investigation is in progress.
14. Learned Counsel Mr. Ravani for the CBI, emphasized, referring to the provisions of sec. 438, that the word 'accusation' is required to be considered and it is different from sec. 439 and submitted that the court has to consider only the accusation at this stage and prima face case is not to be examined. He has, referring to the statements of other witnesses including of one Noor Mohamed Goghari and Mahendrasinh Zala. emphasized that there is involvement of the applicant accused and therefore the present application may not be entertained.
15. Learned counsel Mr. Ravani referred to the charge sheet and submitted that the two witnesses, Ramanbhai Patel and Dashratbhai Patel, had a meeting with the applicant which is recorded. He referred to the three meetings dated 29.3.2010, 10.4.2010 and 3.3.2010. Learned counsel Mr. Ravani also submitted that the extortion racket in connivance with the police and politicians is a matter of investigation and this extortion was from the marble traders which is required to be investigated. He has also stated that the investigation is going on.
Learned Counsel Mr. Ravani submitted that though the incident of fake encounter and the extortion may relate back to 2005, the charges are also for offence under sec. 120B (conspiracy) and therefore the court may not entertain the present application for anticipatory bail.
16. Learned counsel Mr. Ravani also referred to the provisions of sec. 438 and strenuously submitted that the word used is "accusation" and submitted that the court has to only consider the 'accusation' levelled against the applicant-accused and no further material is required to be considered. He also submitted that the statement of both the witnesses, Ramanbhai Patel and Dashratbhai Patel, have been recorded and there is a transcript as to what transpired in the meeting, which would suggest the involvement of the applicant prima facie and therefore the application may not be entertained.
17. Learned counsel Mr. Ravani also referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court to emphasise about the exercise of discretion with care and circumspection. He has referred to and relied upon the judgment reported in (1997) 7 SCC 187 in the case of State (represented by the CBI) v. Anil Sharma and referred to the observations made in Para 4 and 6. He submitted that it has also been observed that "effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated."
18. Learned Counsel Mr. Ravani also referred to and relied upon the judgment reported in 2001(4) SC 224 in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Ritesh s/o Vasudeo Wanjari.
19. Similarly, he has also referred to and relied upon the judgment reported in (2005) 4 SCC 303 in the case of Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. and submitted that the power is extra-ordinary and has to be exercised only in limited cases.
20. Learned counsel Mr. Ravani also referred to and relied upon the judgment in the case of State of Gujarat v. Narendra K. Amin, reported in (2008) 13 SCC 594, and submitted that it is a matter of one officer involved in fake encounter where the observations have been made for exercise of discretion under sec. 438 and he emphasized that there also it was considered with regard to the aspect of custodial interrogation which is required to be considered.
21. Learned counsel Mr. Ravani submitted that an attempt is made to bifurcate the role on the ground that the applicant could not be part of the main conspiracy in the incident of fake encounter committed in 2005 which may not be considered at this stage. Learned counsel Mr. Ravani therefore submitted that at this stage only the nature of accusation may be considered and the discretion under sec. 438 may not be exercised in favour of the applicant. He also submitted that when the allegations are for conspiracy under sec. 120B, the individual role may not be considered and he has also referred to the orders refusing bail by the court earlier for the other accused. He, therefore, submitted that the present application may be rejected.
22. In rejoinder, learned Counsel Mr. Panchal adopted the same submissions made by learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Lalit in Criminal Misc Application No. 10365 of 2010 to focus on the contradictory stand adopted by CBI only with a view to implicate the applicant-accused. Learned counsel Mr. Panchal submitted that reading the statement of the two witnesses Ramanbhai Patel and Dashratbhai Patel both under sec. 161 and 164 and also the transcript, the court has to consider whether it suggests even a prima facie case regarding the involvement for the so-called main conspiracy.
23. Again, learned counsel Mr. Panchal referred to the material and evidence and submitted that when the investigation is in progress on the one hand to resist the present application and on the other hand submitting the charge sheet with accusation for the involvement in the main conspiracy without any material is required to be considered. He emphasized and submitted that the main conspiracy or the incident of fake encounter has taken place in 2005. The applicant has been interrogated in 2010 and even in the charge sheet submitted by the CBI what has been relied upon are the statements of the two witnesses, the transcript and taking it as it is, it cannot be said that the applicant is involved in the main conspiracy as alleged.
24. Learned counsel Mr. Panchal submitted that when it is stated that further investigation is pending it is also stated that as the investigation is pending all material is not placed before the court which also suggest the unfairness to oppose the present application inasmuch as, as it could be revealed from the charge sheet qua the present applicant, suggesting the role for offence under sec. 201 only at best. He, therefore, submitted that as the offence under sec. 201 is a bailable offence, there is no question of any custodial interrogation being granted and it is only with a view to implicate the applicant accused he is sought to be implicated for the main conspiracy without any supporting material.
25. Learned counsel Mr. Panchal submitted that there is no inculpatory statement of the applicant involving him in the main conspiracy and even the statement of the two witnesses do not suggest about any role or involvement as, for the purpose of conspiracy, there has to be a prior meeting of mind. Learned counsel Mr. Panchal submitted that meeting of mind is essential even though there may not be a direct evidence, but the entire circumstances have to be considered and, therefore, the court may consider the material which is placed on record as to whether the applicant accused can be said to have been involved in the main conspiracy even prima facie on the basis of the material. He emphasized and submitted that a reference has even been made to the larger conspiracy, extortion and the fake encounter. There is no reference to any such evidence in the charge sheet so far as the present applicant accused is concerned and therefore the present application may be allowed, particularly when the offence under sec. 201 is bailable and the accused has a right to be released on bail.
26. In support of this submission, learned counsel Mr. Panchal has referred to and relied upon the judgment reported in the case of Rasiklal v. Kishore s/o Khanchand Wadhwani, reported (2009) 4 SCC 446 wherein it has been observed that "The right to claim bail granted by Section 436 of the Code in a bailable offence is an absolute and indefeasible right. In bailable offences there is no question of discertion in granting bail as the words of Section 436 are imperative."
27. In view of rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present application can be entertained or not.
28. Though the Court is not required to discuss in detail at this stage the various aspects while deciding the present application since submissions have been made at length as recorded hereinabove, some of the relevant aspects are required to be focused. The court is conscious of the fact that that further investigation has been handed over to the CBI in view of directions of the Hon'ble apex Court in January 2010.
29. It is well settled by catena of judicial pronouncements that the discretion under sec. 438 of CrPC has to be exercised with care and circumspection. Though much emphasis has been made by learned counsel Mr. Ravani for the CBI on this aspect, particularly referring to the provisions of sec. 438 that the words used are "when any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence" and emphasis on 'accusation' is required to be considered.
30. As it is revealed from the papers including the charge sheet submitted by the CBI, the applicant has been shown as an accused. Further, there is a distinction between the suspect and the accused. It is also required to be considered in light of the submissions canvassed referring to the charge sheet as well as the statement of the witnesses and even the transcript that the court is only required to consider mere accusation made or whether the court has also to consider the material suggesting the prima facie involvement. Therefore, the submission made by learned counsel Mr. Ravani that only the nature of accusation has to be seen, and not even the prima facie case or the material, is misconceived and cannot be accepted.
31. It is required to be noted that even while considering the exercise of powers under the preventive detention laws, when such powers are conferred in public interest, a judicial scrutiny is permitted to examine whether it satisfies the test of "subjective satisfaction based on objective material."
32. Therefore, while considering the present application, the court is required to consider the well accepted guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in catena of judicial pronouncements. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565 in the case of Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibia and ors. V. State of Punjab has considered at length the legislative intent and the scope of exercise of such discretion and the restraint on such discretion and it has considered the judgment of the Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court referring to the various factors for exercise of such discretion as well as the provisions of sec. 438 of CrPC. It has been observed specifically in Para 15 and again in Para 26 :
"We find a great deal of substance in Mr. Tarkunde's submission that since denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty, the court should lean against the imposition of unnecessary restrictions on the scope of Section 438, especially when no such restrictions have been imposed by the legislature in the terms of that section. Section 438 is a procedural provision which is concerned with the personal liberty of the individual, who is entitled to the benefit of the presumption of innocence since he is not, on the date of his application for anticipatory bail, convicted of the offence in respect of which he seeks bail. An over generous infusion of constraints and conditions which are not to be found in Section 438 can make its provisions constitutionally vulnerable since the right to personal freedom cannot be made to depend on compliance with unreasonable restrictions. The beneficent provision contained in Section 438 must be saved, not jettisoned. No doubt can linger after the decision in Maneka Gandhi, that in order to meet the challenge of Article 21 of the Constitution, the procedure established by law for depriving a person of his liberty must be fair, just and reasonable."
33. Further, it has been laid down in this very judgment that such a discretion has to be exercised on careful consideration of the facts and material as it is a "device to secure individual's liberty; it is neither a passport to the commission of crimes nor a shield against any and all kinds of accusations." It has also been observed that no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principle governing the exercise of discretion can be laid down as it will depend upon the facts and circumstances.
34. Therefore, a balance has to be maintained between the rival claims of the accused as well as the investigating agency depending upon the facts and circumstances and the material suggesting prima face case.
35. The same view has been reiterated from time to time in various judgments including the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pravinbhai Kashirambhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and ors., reported in (2010) 7 SCC 598 . Considering the same judgment as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2005) 8 SCC 21 in the case of State of U.P. Through CBI v/ Amarmani Tripathi as well as the judgment cited by learned counsel Mr. Ravani, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "except for indicating the broad outlines for grant of bail and/or anticipatory bail, no straitjacket formula can be prescribed for universal application, as each case for grant of bail has to be considered on its own merits and in the facts and nuances of each case."
36. It is in this background, therefore, the facts of the present case are required to be considered in light of the rival submissions made at length.
37. Without much elaboration on this aspect, the following aspects are required to be noted that further investigation has been ordered to be carried out in view of the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court to the CBI. The applicant accused has been interrogated in 2010. The charge sheet has been filed and Para 37, 38, 42, 46 & 48 are relevant and in Para 38 of the charge sheet, as rightly emphasized by learned Counsel Mr. Panchal, there is one line accusing the applicant of involvement in the main conspiracy, whereas Para 46 refers specifically to the charge of tampering with the evidence and for offence under sec. 201 of IPC.
38. It is in light of this the submissions have been canvassed that even if the accusation made by the prosecuting agency, CBI, is accepted at the face value and the statements of the two witnesses along with the transcript is read as it is, at best it would attribute the applicant with the role and offence under sec. 201 of IPC and there is no evidence to connect or suggest the involvement of the applicant accused for conspiracy.
39. Therefore, when the charge sheet has been filed accusing the applicant accused for involvement and active participation in the main conspiracy and the incident of fake encounter or the extortion, no material has been placed except this. Even if the submission made by learned counsel Mr. Ravani referring to the statements and the transcript are accepted, it refers to the meeting which prima facie suggests about the talk for settlement of the cases of the two witnesses about the default in repayment of the huge loan amount and PASA. Moreover, it will not be advisable to discuss the statement and the transcript at this stage and therefore only for considering the prima facie case for deciding the alleged persuasion of the witnesses for concealment of the facts to the CBI in course of the talk by the present applicant has to be considered.
40. Therefore, without any further elaboration, the aspect which is required to be considered is with regard to charge of conspiracy and also the prima facie case suggesting involvement of the applicant accused in a larger or the main conspiracy and active participation. The material, as discussed above, in the opinion of this court, do not support the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. Ravani for the CBI. The accusation may be serious, but there has to be a prima facie case suggesting the involvement, which, as discussed above, cannot be said to have been substantiated prima facie.
41. Further, the law as regards conspiracy for offence under sec. 120B is well settled with regard to the meeting of mind and even if the person may not be present or may not be involved, it could be at any stage prior to the incident, at the time of the incident or immediately thereafter. However, even considering these principles with regard to the aspect of conspiracy, it is not required to be discussed in detail at this stage. It would be sufficient to observe that when the person is accused in the charge sheet about active participation, it has to be substantiated by some material suggesting the prima facie involvement. On the other hand, it is argued that the investigation is in progress, which itself reflects out the manner of investigation.
42. The observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in (2005) 11 SCC 600 in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot SANDHU alias AFSAN GURU on the aspect of the genesis of the crime and the complicity of the accused is required to be considered and for complicity of the accused in the conspiracy, the prima facie material suggesting the involvement is required to be considered.
43. Further, this aspect is also required to be considered in light of the fact that if the applicant is charged or suggested prima facie involvement for offence under sec. 201, which is a bailable offence, the same is required to be considered in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rasiklal v. Kishore s/o Khanchand Wadhwani (supra), wherein it has been observed, "The right to claim bail granted by Section 436 of the Code in a bailable offence is an absolute and indefeasible right. In bailable offences there is no question of discretion in granting bail as the words of Section 436 are imperative."
44. It is also required to be mentioned that one of the relevant considerations is the character of evidence which is required to be appreciated, particularly when the two witnesses are alleged to have been involved in many cases and they have themselves stated regarding settlement of the cases as it is revealed from their statements.
45. One more aspect is required to be considered with regard to the process and warrant under sec. 70. It may be noted that admittedly before the issuance of warrant, no summons has been served, no intimation has been given and any endorsement for any such attempt to serve the summons or intimation to the accused persons at their residence or office is not there.
46. The applicant is said to have accepted the money for which details are stated with dates and as emphasized by the learned counsel for the applicant he was abroad when the payment is stated to have been made by the witnesses. These witnesses have also stated that they have made kachha note with dates whereas admittedly the applicant was abroad for which the passport is also submitted to the CBI. Therefore, it has also a reference to the character of evidence which has to be prima facie considered.
47. The judgments referred to by learned counsel Mr. Ravani were in the facts of the case as in the case of State (represented by the CBI v. Anil Sharma (supra) it was a case regarding disproportionate assets, whereas in the judgment in the case of State of Gujarat v. Narendra K. Amin (supra) the facts were totally different as the concerned police officer was found to have been directly involved in the main conspiracy/encounter.
48. It is in these circumstances, while maintaining the balance between the right of the accused and the investigating agency-CBI, the court is of the opinion that the present application deserves to be allowed. It is required to be mentioned that the apprehension that it may hamper the investigation will also not be sustainable as this aspect has also been considered in the aforesaid judgment in the case of Shri Gurubakh Singh Sibia and ors. (supra) and usual conditions are there for co-operating with the investigating agency.
49. In the result, the present application stands allowed. The applicant-accused AJAY HARIBHAI PATEL is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with C.B.I. Case No. RCBS1/2010/S/0004-MUM in respect of the offence alleged against him on his executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each with one solvent surety for the like amount and on further conditions that he shall :
(a) remain present before the trial court regularly as and when directed on the dates fixed;
(b ) make himself available for interrogation by the I.O., CBI, whenever and wherever required.
(c) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to the CBI.
(d) not to obstruct or hamper the investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the CBI;
(e) at the time of executing the bond, furnish his address to the I.O. and the courts concerned, and shall not change his residence till the final disposal of the case or till further orders;
(f) not to leave India without the permission of the court and if having a passport, shall deposit the same before the trial court within a week;
50. It would be open to the I.O. to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits.
51. This order will hold good if the applicant is arrested at any time within 90 days from today. The order for release on bail will remain operative only for a period of 10 days from the date of his arrest during which it will be open to the applicant to make a fresh application for being enlarged on bail in usual course which, when it comes before the competent court, will be disposed of in accordance with law having regard to all the attending circumstances and the materials available at the relevant time uninfluenced by the act that anticipatory bail was granted.
52. When the order was pronounced, learned counsel Mr. Ravani was asked as to where he would like the applicant-accused to remain present as per the usual conditions. However, learned counsel Mr. Ravani has stated that his client would like to take the matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court and therefore no date or place for remaining present is required to be stated and, therefore, it is not specifically observed as to when and where the applicant-accused should remain present. However, it goes without saying that the applicant-accused shall make himself available for interrogation and co-operate with the investigating agency.
Rule is made absolute. D.S. permitted.
(Rajesh H. Shukla, J.) (hn) Top