1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Hiteshkumar vs State

High Court Of Gujarat|28 June, 2012
Mr. Kodekar, Ld. APP appears and waives service of rule for the respondent - State.
1. The instant application is filed seeking anticipatory bail u/s. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Sola High Court Police Station C.R. No. I-35 of 2004 for the offences punishable u/ss.406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477[A] of the IPC.
2. Mr.
PM Thakkar, Ld. Sr. Counsel for M/s. Thakkar Associates for the applicants, at the outset, submitted that in the instant matter all other co-accused, against whom charge-sheet came to be filed, have been already released on bail and they are facing the trial. It is submitted that both the applicants were in Dubai when the FIR came to be registered and, therefore, they could not know about the FIR and as soon as they came to know about such FIR, they approached the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail, but their bail was rejected solely on the ground that they were residing abroad and till date they did not appear. Mr. Thakkar, Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that now that the applicants came to India, they will cooperate the Investigating Officer and if the supplementary charge-sheet would be filed, then they will cooperate the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the matter.
3. Mr.
Kodekar, learned APP for the respondent - State opposed this application.
4. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, so also considering the fact that the other co-accused persons against whom the trial is proceeding before the trial Court, have already been released on bail and further the fact that the applicants have shown their readiness to cooperate the investigating police agency, subject to imposition of requisite conditions, the application deserves to be granted.
5. 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 applicants herein being arrested pursuant to FIR being Sola High Court Police Station C.R. No. I-35 of 2004, the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with one surety of like amount on following conditions:-
[a] shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required.
[b] shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 05/07/2012 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.
Rule made absolute. DSP.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.) * Pansala.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.