Gujarat High Court
Narayan Raghunath Maru vs State Of Gujarat on 27 February, 2015
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
R/CR.MA/3483/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION
(FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL ) NO. 3483 of 2015
================================================================
NARAYAN RAGHUNATH MARU....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. K.P. RAVAL, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 27/02/2015
ORAL ORDER
Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Raval, the learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-original accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered at CR No. I-02 of 2015 before the Amreli Taluka Police Station, of the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 114 of the IPC.
3. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant would submit that considering the nature of offence, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions.
Page 1 of 4R/CR.MA/3483/2015 ORDER
4. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has opposed this application and granting anticipatory bail to the applicant looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.
5. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, perused the investigation papers and have also taken into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the applicant-accused and 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 Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. as reported at [2011] 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors., as reported at (1980) 2 SCC 665.
6. The learned Advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions, including impositions of conditions with regard to the powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent court for his remand. He would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open.
7. It appears from the materials on record that two Branch Managers and one Cashier are alleged to have committed the offence. The nature of the offence is that the persons who availed of the loan facility from the Bank had pledged their jewellery. After the repayment of the loan amount, the jewellery was given back to the loanees. However, after taking over the possession of the jewellery, at a particular point of time, they realised that there is a reduction in the weight of the jewellery. The case of the prosecution is that two Page 2 of 4 R/CR.MA/3483/2015 ORDER Branch Managers and one Cashier are responsible for the reduction in the weight of the gold jewellery. It is not satisfactorily explained to me in what manner the jewellery were tampered with. It is also not satisfactorily explained at what point of time the jewellery were tampered with. One of the Managers, who succeeded the present applicant has been enlarged on anticipatory bail. The casher, who has the second key of the strong room, is also released on anticipatory bail. If the co-accused are on anticipatory bail, I do not see any good ground why I should refuse the anticipatory bail to the present applicant. The investigation may go on, but I do not find any good ground for custodial interrogation.
8. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest of the applicant herein in connection with the FIR registered at C.R. No. I-02 of 2015 before the Amreli Taluka Police Station, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety of the like amount on the following conditions that he shall:
(a) cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) remain present at the concerned Police Station on
9.2.2015 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;
(c) 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/them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;
(d) 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) 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) not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport, shall deposit the same before the Trial Page 3 of 4 R/CR.MA/3483/2015 ORDER Court within a week; and
(g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would decide the same on merits;
9. 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.
10. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima- facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) Mohandas Page 4 of 4