Gujarat High Court Case Information System BODY {SCROLLBAR-FACE-COLOR: #d4d0c8; SCROLLBAR-HIGHLIGHT-COLOR: #808080; SCROLLBAR-SHADOW-COLOR: #d4d0c8; SCROLLBAR-ARROW-COLOR: #ffffff; scrollbar-dark-shadow-color: #ffffff} SPAN.searchword { background-color:yellow; } function loadSearchHighlight() {
var chkParamC = "txtSearch" if (chkParamC == "txtSearch") {
SearchHighlight(); document.searchhi.h.value = searchhi_string; if( location.hash.length > 1 ) location.hash = location.hash; }
}
CR.MA/10479/2012 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10479 of 2012
===========================================
MANILAL
SALAMSINH RATHOD - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================== Appearance
:
MR BOMI H SETHNA for Applicant(s) : 1, MS MOXA THAKKAR ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, ===========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 20/07/2012
ORAL
ORDER
1. Rule.
Learned APP, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent - State.
2. This
application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with first information report registered at CR No.I-42 of 2011 with Kothamba Police Station, District: Panchmahal, for the offences punishable under Section 408 etc. of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned
counsel for the applicant submits that even after registration of FIR on 17th June, 2011 and three round of litigation of seeking anticipatory bail, till today investigation has not proceeded any further and even earlier order of learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra was quashed and set aside for applying irrelevant facts while exercising power under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and again for irrelevant consideration the anticipatory bail to the applicant is denied. It is further submitted that in view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
4. Heard
Learned APP for the respondent - State.
5. Having
heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, 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.
6. Learned
counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.
7. In
the result, this application is allowed by directing that in the event of the applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR being CR No.I-42 of 2011 with Kothamba Police Station, District: Panchmahal, 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
remain present at concerned Police Station on 26.7.2012 between 11:00 am to 2:00 pm:
[c] 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;
[d] 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;
[e]
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
[f] 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.
[g] 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.
8. For
modification and/or deletion of any of the conditions herein above, the applicant/s will be at liberty to approach the concerned Court and such Court shall decide the application for modification and/or deletion of any of the conditions of this order in accordance with law.
9. At
the trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage, made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.
10. Rule
made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly.
11. Direct
service is permitted.
[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]
//smita//
Top