Gujarat High Court
Nitin Shivaji Patil vs State Of Gujarat on 3 April, 2019
Author: Vipul M. Pancholi
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
R/CR.MA/6334/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6334 of 2019
==========================================================
NITIN SHIVAJI PATIL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PREMAL S RACHH(3297) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR LB DABHI, APP(2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 03/04/2019
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned APP Mr.Dabhi waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.
2. 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.I-79 of 2016 registered with City `A' Division Police Station, Jamnagar for offence under Sections 406, 465, 471 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. 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.
4. It is contended by learned advocate for the Page 1 of 5 R/CR.MA/6334/2019 ORDER applicant that in connection with the FIR in question, the applicant was released on bail in the year 2017. Thereafter, FIR under Section 507 of Indian Penal Code came to be filed against the applicant by the original complainant and therefore the investigating agency filed an application under Section 439(2) of the Indian Penal Code for cancellation of bail. The said application came to be dismissed by the concerned Magistrate against which the revision application came to be filed by the state and the revision application was allowed by the concerned Sessions Court as the applicant could not remain present during the course of hearing of the said application, thereafter, the applicant is arrested. Thereafter, the application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code before the Sessions Court is rejected, hence, this application is filed.
5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.
6. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.
7. Having heard the learned advocates for the Page 2 of 5 R/CR.MA/6334/2019 ORDER 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.
8. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocate for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. From the material placed on record, it is revealed that the applicant was released on bail in the year 2017 in connection with the FIR in question. However, thereafter, the bail granted to the applicant was cancelled on registration of another FIR filed under Section 507 of the Indian Penal Code and he was arrested and the applicant is in jail since 7.3.2019. However, from the material placed on record, I am inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant.
9. 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.
10. Hence, the present application is allowed.
The applicant is ordered to be released on Page 3 of 5 R/CR.MA/6334/2019 ORDER regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.No.I-79 of 2016 registered with City `A' Division Police Station, Jamnagar 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 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 this Court;
Page 4 of 5R/CR.MA/6334/2019 ORDER
11. 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 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.
12. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
13. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J) SRILATHA Page 5 of 5