1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Vijaysinh Gajendrasinh Parmar vs State Of Gujarat

High Court Of Gujarat|22 February, 2019
1. Rule. Learned APP, Mr.K.P. Raval waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent­State.
2. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant­accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. I-5/2019 registered with Gujarat University Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offenses punishable under Sections 324, 294(kh), 506(2) and 279 of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 177, 184 and 134(B) of the Motor vehicle Act, under Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act and under Sections 3(1)(R) and 3(2)(5)(A) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not Page 1 of 5 R/CR.MA/2269/2019 ORDER necessary. He further submits that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation, trial also and will not flee from justice.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.
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, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
7. It is evident from the material produced on record that though FIR is filed for the alleged offfences committed under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, this Court, vide order dated 19.01.2019, observed that Page 2 of 5 R/CR.MA/2269/2019 ORDER no coercive action against the petitioner/ applicant so far as the provisions of the Atrocities Act are concerned be taken. However so far as the offence under the Indian Penal Code is concerned, liberty is reserved to the applicant to take legal remedy available under the law. The applicant has therefore filed present application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with regard to the allegations leveled against him for the offence under the provision of the Indian Penal Code. However looking to the investigation papers and the allegations leveled against the application, the present application deserves to be allowed.
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 665.
9. 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 a FIR being C.R. No. I-5/2019 registered with Gujarat University Police Station, Ahmedabad City on his executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/­ (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions:
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;
R/CR.MA/2269/2019 ORDER
(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 01.03.2019 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 Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the 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;
10. 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 Page 4 of 5 R/CR.MA/2269/2019 ORDER 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.
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) Gautam Page 5 of 5
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
  • Vipul M Pancholi