Bhatt Saileshkumar Jashvantrai vs State Of Gujarat on 28 June, 2013

[Cites 5, Cited by 1]

Gujarat High Court

Bhatt Saileshkumar Jashvantrai vs State Of Gujarat on 28 June, 2013

Bench: A.J.Desai

  
	 
	 BHATT SAILESHKUMAR JASHVANTRAI....Applicant(s)V/SSTATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s)
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	

 
 


	 


	R/CR.MA/10075/2013
	                                                                    
	                           ORDER

 

 


 
	  
	  
		 
			 

IN
			THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
		
	

 


 


 


CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL ) NO. 10075 of 2013
 


 


 

================================================================
 


BHATT SAILESHKUMAR
JASHVANTRAI
 


Versus
 


STATE OF GUJARAT
 

================================================================
 

Appearance:
 

MR
UMESH A TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant
 

MR
JIGAR G GADHAVI, ADVOCATE for the Complainant 

 

MS
KRINA CALLA , APP for the Respondent No. 1
 

================================================================
 

 


 


	 
		  
		 
		  
			 
				 

CORAM:
				
				
			
			 
				 

HONOURABLE
				MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
			
		
	

 


 

 


Date : 28/06/2013
 


ORAL ORDER

Heard learned Advocate Mr. Umesh A Trivedi, for the applicant, Mr. Jigar G Gadhavi, learned Advocate for the complainant and learned APP Ms. Krina Calla for the respondent State.

2 By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant- accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered at CR No. I-78 of 2013 before Vijapur Police Station, for the offenses punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

3 I have perused the investigation papers, affidavit filed on behalf of the original complainant as well as the documentary evidence, such as, public notice, MoU entered between the original complainant as well as applicant No.1, etc.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused, 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 has reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of case of e case of e case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors., as reported at (1980) 2 SCC 665.

5 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 CR No. I-78 of 2013 before Vijapur Police Station for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety of 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 concerned Police Station on 03.7.2013 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

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) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the Trial 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 it on merits;

6. 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.

7 At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on anticipatory bail.

8 Rule is made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.

(A.J.DESAI, J.) pnnair Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court