Jayesh Rudabhai Bambhava vs State Of Gujarat

1. Rule. Learned APP Mr. H. K. Patel waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.

2. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with FIR being I - C. R. No.25/2019 registered with Lalpur Police Station, Jamnagar for offence under Sections 376(3), 376(2)(N) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 4, 5(L), 6 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

4. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 13 22:10:31 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/439/2020 ORDER opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

5. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

6. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

7. This Court has considered following aspects,

(a) The alleged incident had taken place in the month of August 2019.

(b) Charge sheet is filed.

(C) Considering the fact that FIR is filed against 8 accused.

It is further submitted that so far as original accused No.2 Harish @ Lalo Ramiesh Shishangia is concenred, allegations levelled against him are similar in nature. Such co- accused has been released by the co-oridinate bench vide order dated 19.12.2019. Copy of such order is placed on record. Learned advocate for the applicant has referred the said order, wherein in para 5(V) this Court has observed as under;

"[V] From the investigation case papers, DNA of the Fetus does not match the applicant, but it matches to one Ramesh."

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am inclined to consider the case of the applicant.

R/CR.MA/439/2020 ORDER

8. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40.

9. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR being I - C. R. No.25/2019 registered with Lalpur Police Station, Jamnagar on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall; [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

[d] not leave the India without prior permission of the concerned trial court;

[e] mark presence before the concerned Police Station between 1st to 10th day of every English calendar month for a period of six months between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;

[f] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of the concerned trial court;

10. The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 13 22:10:31 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/439/2020 ORDER take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law.

11. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.

12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J) DRASHTI K. SHUKLA Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 13 22:10:31 IST 2020