Gujarat High Court
Rambhai Kamabhai Mer vs State Of Gujarat on 21 June, 2021
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
R/CR.MA/17062/2020 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 17062 of 2020
==========================================================
RAMBHAI KAMABHAI MER
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR.H.K.PATEL, APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 21/06/2021
ORAL ORDER
[1] Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties by video conferencing.
[2] By way of the present application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants-accused have prayed for bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.No. 11193018201129 of 2020 registered with Dhari Police Station, District Amreli for the offences under Sections 341, 504, 506 (2), 114 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.
[3] The facts of the case are as under:-
The impugned FIR was lodged by Sanjaybhai Vajubhai Dhanak on 09.10.2020. It is alleged in the FIR that he has purchased one house on Plot No.161, survey No.443 and No. 448 at Sardarnagar, Dhari, District Amreli on 19.02.2015 from Page 1 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 24 20:59:43 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/17062/2020 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021 Vinodbhai Padsala and now he has sold the land to one Savitaben Shiyal on 25.06.2020. It is alleged that when the new purchaser Savitaben with other person on 09.10.2020 went to house for cleaning at that time the present applicants with their wives came and told that the house is in their possession. It is alleged that when it is informed to the complainant, he also went there with driver and another person. It is alleged that at that time the applicant and co-accused used abusive language and threatened the complainant. Therefore, the impugned FIR has been lodged.
It is submitted that the possession of the land from the very beginning is with the applicant but Vinodbhai Padasala purchased the land in the year 2015 and he has sold it to the complainant on 19.02.2015 and the complainant has thereafter sold the land to Savitaben Shiyal.
[4] Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation of the applicants at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicants will keep themselves available during the course of investigation, as well as in the trial also and will not flee from justice.
[5] Learned advocate for the applicants, on instructions, states that the applicants are ready and willing to abide by all the conditions, including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of investigating agency to file an application before the competent Court for their remand. He further submits that upon filing of such application by the investigating agency, the right of the applicants Page 2 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 24 20:59:43 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/17062/2020 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021 accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. Learned advocate, therefore, submits that considering the above facts, the applicants may be granted bail.
[6] On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.H.K.Patel appearing on behalf of the respondent- State has opposed grant of bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Learned APP has submitted that there are antecedents against the applicants with regard to the prohibition offences and other offences also. He has submitted that after the present offence, one another offence under the Land Gambling Act is also instituted.
[7] 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, at this stage, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicants.
[8] This Court has considered the following aspects;
(a) The mother of the applicants has instituted Regular Civil Suit No.8 of 2015 before the District and Sessions Judge, Amreli at Dhari with prayer of permanent injunction and declaration.
(b) It appears that the possession of the land was from the very beginning is with the applicant but Vinodbhai Padasala purchased the land in the year 2015 and he has sold it to the complainant on 19.02.2015 and the complainant has sold the land to Savitaben Page 3 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 24 20:59:43 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/17062/2020 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021 Shiyal.
(c) looking to the role attributed to the applicant,
(d) the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary at this stage.
Looking to the over all facts and circumstances of the present case, I am inclined to consider the case of the applicant.
[9] This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (Nct of Delhi), AIR 2020 SC 831 and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 2011 SC 312. .
[10] In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicants are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with FIR being C.R.No.11193018201129 of 2020 registered with Dhari Police Station, District Amreli on their executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) EACH with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that they :
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 28.06.2021 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;
(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or Page 4 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 24 20:59:43 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/17062/2020 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021 promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;
(d) shall 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) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the addresses 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) shall not leave India without the permission of the concerned trial court and if having passports shall deposit the same before the concerned trial court within a week.
[11] Despite this order, it would be open for the investigating agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicants, if they consider it proper and just and the Magistrate would decide it on merits. The applicants shall remain present before the concerned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the concerned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining the 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 concerned Magistrate to consider Page 5 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 24 20:59:43 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/17062/2020 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021 such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicants, 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 bail order.
[12] At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
[13] The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned authority/court through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.
[14] Learned advocate for the applicant is also permitted to send a copy of this order to the concerned authority/court through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) VARSHA DESAI Page 6 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 24 20:59:43 IST 2021