Gujarat High Court
Hakumatsinh Kiritsinh Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat on 2 May, 2022
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
R/CR.MA/4778/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 4778 of 2022
==========================================================
HAKUMATSINH KIRITSINH JADEJA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.SANAT B PANDYA(6976) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR LB DABHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 02/05/2022
ORAL ORDER
[1] Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.
[2] By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.No. 11993005210446 of 2021 registered with Aadesar Police Station, Dist. Kachchh (east), for the offence under Sections 352, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 294-B and 506(2) of the IPC and section 135 of the G.P.Act and Sections 25(1-b)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act.
[3] Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation of the applicant at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation, as well as trial also and will not flee from justice. He has submitted that the applicant was not present at the place of incident. He has submitted that the applicant is a government Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu May 05 20:30:58 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/4778/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2022 servant and is serving as a Police Sub-Inspector and during that time there was election of Sarpanch and hence, he was on duty at pre-decided place. He has submitted that at the time of elections, the police are given special instructions to remain present at a certain location for certain period of time and hence, he was on duty and was not present at the place of incident. He has also submitted that as per the FIR, the incident took place on 22.12.2021 at night and the FIR was lodged on 27.12.2021 and that too, no explanation for delay in registering the FIR is given.
[4] Learned advocate for the applicant, on instructions, states that the applicant is 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 his remand. He further submits that upon filing of such application by the investigating agency, the right of the applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. Learned advocate, therefore, submits that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted bail.
[5] On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent- State has opposed grant of bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. He has submitted that the role attributed to the applicant is hitting the injured with stick, which caused fracture in three fingures.
[6] 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 Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu May 05 20:30:58 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/4778/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2022 offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
[7] This Court has considered following aspects;
(a) The role of the applicant; (b) No antecedents have been pointed out against the applicant; (c) The delay of 5 days occurred in registering the FIR is not explained; (d) Prima facie, the investigation does not reveal that the
applicant was present at the place of incident; looking to the over all facts and circumstances of the present case, I am inclined to consider the case of the applicant.
(e) Prima facie, considering the facts of the case, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary at this stage;
[8] This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (Nct of Delhi), AIR 2020 SC 831 and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 2011 SC 312.
[9] In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR being C.R.No. 11993005210446 of 2021 registered with Aadesar Police Station, Dist. Kachchh (east) on his executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that he :
Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu May 05 20:30:58 IST 2022R/CR.MA/4778/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2022
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 09.05.2022 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;
(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or 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 address 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 passport shall deposit the same before the concerned trial court within a week.
[10] Despite this order, it would be open for the investigating agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant, if he considers it proper and just and the Magistrate would decide if on merits. The applicant shall remain present before the concerned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu May 05 20:30:58 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/4778/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2022 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 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 bail order.
[11] At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
[12] The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) ABHISHEK/89 Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu May 05 20:30:58 IST 2022