Goswami Pravinpuri Manipuri S/O ... vs State Of Gujarat on 9 May, 2019

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Goswami Pravinpuri Manipuri S/O ... vs State Of Gujarat on 9 May, 2019

Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi

       R/CR.MA/8613/2019                                            ORDER



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

      R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO.                    8613 of 2019

=======================================================
   GOSWAMI PRAVINPURI MANIPURI S/O HARKHABHAI DARJI
                         Versus
                   STATE OF GUJARAT
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR MANOJKUMAR K JOSHI(10427) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
SUDHANSHU A JHA(8345) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JIGAR G GADHAVI(5613) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR LB DABHI APP(2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

                            Date : 09/05/2019
                                  ORAL ORDER

1. 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.I15/2019 registered with Bavlu Police Station, Mehsana for offence under Sections 306, 498(A), 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Act.

2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

3. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent State as well as learned advocate for the original complainant have opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Learned advocate for the original complainant has referred to the averements made in the affidavit inreply and submitted that the fatherinlaw and Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 30 20:50:19 IST 2019 R/CR.MA/8613/2019 ORDER motherinlaw are the main culprits and, therefore, this Court may not exercise the discretion in their favour. He also stated that the applicant was residing with the applicant with the deceased, however since last 15 days, he has gone to different place.

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

5. 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.

6. This Court has considered following aspects,

(a) the applicant is in jail since 28.03.2019;

(b) the investigation is almost concluded qua the applicant;

(c) the applicant is the fatherinlaw of the deceased and is residing separately as contended by learned advocate for the applicant.

Thus considering the above facts, the present application deserves to be allowed.

7. 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.

8. Hence, the present application is allowed. The Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 30 20:50:19 IST 2019 R/CR.MA/8613/2019 ORDER applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.I 15/2019 registered with Bavlu Police Station, Mehsana 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 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 India 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 for a period of six months between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.; [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 the Sessions Court;

9. 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 Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 30 20:50:19 IST 2019 R/CR.MA/8613/2019 ORDER take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having 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.

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

11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted.

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J) Gautam Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 30 20:50:19 IST 2019

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court