Gujarat High Court
Manu Manna Datta vs State Of Gujarat on 24 December, 2020
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
R/CR.MA/19890/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 19890 of 2020
==========================================================
MANU MANNA DATTA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
CHIRAG M RAJVANIYA(9156) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRANAV TRIVEDI APP(2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 24/12/2020
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent-State.
2. This application has been preferred under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the first information report being C.R. No.III- 11210019201164 of 2020 registered with Ichhapore Police Station, Surat City for the offences punishable under sections 65-A, 65(e), 98(2) of the Prohibition Act.
3. Mr. Chirag M.Rajvaniya, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the Maruti Swift car of the present applicant was parked in the common plot parking of Someshwar Residency. He submitted that the door of the driver seat was open and as per the FIR the vehicle was left unattained. He stated that there is no criminal antecedents against the present applicant under the Prohibition Act. It was, therefore, prayed that discretion may be Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 25 20:16:19 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/19890/2020 ORDER granted in favour of the applicant.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State submitted that the police as per the information had gone to the common plot and found the foreign made liquor worth Rs.8,700/- from the car of the applicant. It was, therefore, prayed that no discretion may be exercised in favour of the applicant.
5. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the material on record. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the front driver seat door was open, the car was in the parking space of the Someshwar Residency, as per the FIR the car was left unattained and earlier there is no case against the present applicant under the Prohibition Act, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
6. 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., reported at [2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, reported at (1980) 2 SCC 565. This Court has also taken into consideration the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State of (NCT of Delhi) and Another, reported in (2020) 5 SCC 01.
Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 25 20:16:19 IST 2020R/CR.MA/19890/2020 ORDER
7. 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 the first information report being C.R. No.III-11210019201164 of 2020 registered with Ichhapore Police Station, Surat City on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that he:
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 07.01.2020 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 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; and
8. 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 Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 25 20:16:19 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/19890/2020 ORDER 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.
9. At the trial, the concerned trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. Registry to communicate this order to the concerned Court/authority by Fax or Email forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J) DIPTI PATEL Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 25 20:16:19 IST 2020