Veerabhai Kanjibhai Patel ... vs State Of Gujarat

VEERABHAI KANJIBHAI PATEL (CHAUDHARY) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance:

MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR NASIR SAIYED(6145) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR PRANAV TRIVEDI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Date : 24/07/2020 ORAL COMMON ORDER

1. Rule. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent-State.

2. These applications have been preferred under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the first information report being I-C.R. No.11195036200270 of 2020 registered with Pathawada Police Station, District : Banaskantha for the offences punishable under sections 365, 342, 325, 323, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

3. Mr. Virat Popat, learned advocate for the applicants, submitted that the facts in the FIR are concocted and no such incident actually occurred, there are family disputes and the applicants have even made representation before the police Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 25 01:26:35 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/9583/2020 ORDER apprehending prosecution. Referring to the documents produced by the original-complainant, Mr. Virat Popat, learned advocate for the applicants, stated that section 325 of the Indian Penal Code was ordered to be deleted and sections 394 and 397 was added as per the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dantiwada, which itself shows that later on material improvements have been made in the case of snatching away mobile, which are manufactured to plug in loopholes to show that he could not have contacted the people through his mobile in the case of allegation of kidnapping. Mr. Virat Popat, further submitted that it is alleged that the victim was taken at six different places and was beaten six times, but the injury is only of fracture on right side lower third fibula, as would be possible that he may have slipped from his two wheeler vehicle, and certain facts have been implanted to falsely implicate the present applicants. It was, therefore, prayed that discretion may be granted in favour of the applicants.

4. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, after considering the case, has ordered to add sections 394 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts of the case shows that release of the applicants on anticipatory bail may end into some fatal circumstances and thus, prayed to reject the applications.

5. Learned advocate, Mr. Nasir Saiyed, was permitted to submit on behalf of the original complainant. As per Mr. Nasir Saiyed, there are possibilities of serious offence of honour-killing which brother-in-law and sister-in-law namely Sahdevbhai and Manjulaben fears. He further submitted that Manjulaben has been granted police protection by order of this Court dated Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 25 01:26:35 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/9583/2020 ORDER 28.05.2020.

6. Mr. Virat Popat, learned advocate for the applicants, replied to submit that the applicants were concerned about the wellbeing of the niece and the family dispute had taken serious turn resulting into filing of the FIR and the proceedings thereunder.

7. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the material on record. It appears from the record that the applicants had grudge against the relationship of Sahdevbhai and Manjulaben. Manjulaben has been given police protection. The development on record of deleting section 365 of the IPC and later on including sections 394 and 397 of the IPC were with malafide intention or not is for the trial Court to decide. At present it appears that internal dispute has resulted into filing of the FIR, thus, taking into consideration facts on record, discretion is required to be exercised in favour of the applicants.

8. 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.

9. In the result, the present applications are allowed. The applicants are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the first information report being I- C.R. No.11195036200270 of 2020 registered with Pathawada Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 25 01:26:35 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/9583/2020 ORDER Police Station, District : Banaskantha on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with one surety of like amount on the 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 05.08.2020 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 him 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

(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;

(h) shall not enter into Bhacharva village;

(i) shall not contact Sahdevbhai and Manjulaben nor tamper with the evidences in any way;

10. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate for police remand of the applicants. The applicants shall remain present before the Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 25 01:26:35 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/9583/2020 ORDER 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 applicants, 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.

11. 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) NEHA / NVMEWADA Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 25 01:26:35 IST 2020