Gujarat High Court
Amitkumar vs State on 28 April, 2011
Author: Anant S. Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/5868/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 5868 of 2011
=========================================
AMITKUMAR
RAKESHKUMAR GUPTA
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & another
===========================================
Appearance :
MR
KAMAL M SOJITRA for Applicant
Mr.
J.K. Shah, APP, for respondent
No.1
Ms.
S.M. Ahuja with Ms. Meena Jagtal for the
complainant
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 28/04/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Rule.
Learned APP, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent - State.
This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with first information report registered at CR No.I-54 of 2011 of Chandkheda Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498(a), 406, 420, 323, 506(1), 292(a) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and, thereafter, Section 377 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, earlier, the applicant was granted anticipatory bail by order dated 15.4.2011 in Criminal Misc. Application No.5065 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 498[a], 323, 506(1), 292[a] and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. That, the father, mother and sister of the applicant also came to be granted anticipatory bail by the trial court. All these orders were served upon the Investigating Officer. However, in the meanwhile, the complainant made a statement before the Investigating Officer and for the offences punishable under section 507 of the Indian Penal Code and later on Sections 377 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code, C.R. No.I-54 of 2011 came to be registered at Chandkheda Police Station. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
Heard Learned APP for the respondent - State and the learned advocate for the complainant.
Prima-facie, the version of the complainant can be considered in a fair and proper method of investigation that may be carried out. At this stage, taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused and punishment prescribed for the alleged offences, 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 Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Reported in [2011]1 SCC 694, wherein the Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Reported in [1980]2 SCC 565.
Learned counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.
In the result, this application is allowed by directing that in the event of the applicant herein being arrested pursuant to first information report registered at CR No.I-54 of 2011 of Chandkheda Police Station for the offences under Sections 377 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code [subsequently added] or any other offences that may be added, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of like amount on following conditions :-
[a] shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required.
[b] shall not hamper the investigation in any manner nor shall directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer;
[c] shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change the residence till the final disposal of the case or till further orders;
[d] will not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if is holding a Passport, shall surrender the same before the trial Court immediately [e] It would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand, if he considers it just and proper and the concerned Magistrate would decide it on merits.
[f] 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 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.
Rule made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly.
Direct service is permitted.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.) [swamy] Top