Amarsinghbhai Ranchhodbhai Vasava vs State Of Gujarat

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned Advocate Mr. Jaydeep H. Sindhi for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L. B. Dabhi on behalf of the respondent-State.

Rule. Learned APP Mr. Dabhi waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

By way of this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant prays for being released on anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 11199050220616 of 2022 registered with Valia Police Station, District Bharuch on 29.06.2022 for offences punishable under Sections 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

The applicant having initially approached the learned Sessions Court, praying for the very selfsame relief of being released on anticipatory bail, having not succeeded before the learned Sessions Court, has approached this Court.

Learned Advocate Mr. Sindhi on behalf of the applicant would submit that while the allegation against the present applicant, is being part of a group which had assaulted the first informant and other family members. Learned Advocate Mr. Sindhi would submit that as per the FIR while the incident had happened after 8 am, more particularly, before 10 am, during such time as the alleged incident had happened at around 9 – 9:30 am, according to learned Advocate Mr. Sindhi, the applicant was at his office situated at district Bharuch and whereas it is submitted that the present applicant has been implicated only on account of the fact that he is working in a public sector enterprise and whereas the fact of the present applicant being in his office, is unquestionable. Learned Advocate Mr. Sindhi would therefore, submit that this Court may consider this application.

Learned APP Mr. Dabhi would submit that while the FIR makes out a very specific role against the present applicant and considering the serious allegations leveled in the FIR, this Court may not consider this applicant. To a specific query as regards the time the alleged incident had taken place and the investigation with regard to the location of the present applicant, learned APP Mr. Dabhi would fairly submit that while the FIR states as the incident having happened at around 10:00 am, witnesses state about the incident having happened somewhere around 9-9:30am. Learned APP Mr. Dabhi would also submit that as per the investigation, it appears that from around 9:30am to around 10:30am, the presence of the present applicant was found at his office at Bharuch.

Considering the submissions made by learned Advocates for the respective parties, this Court without discussing evidence in detail, deems it appropriate to state that the following aspects have been considered by this Court.

[1] The fact of there being some material to show that the present applicant was not present on the spot when the incident had happened.

[2] That the present applicant, working with a Government Sector company, there is always a possibility of over implication.

[3] While having noted the above aspects, so as to ensure that there is no apprehension on part of the first informant or the witnesses as the case may be, this Court deems it appropriate to impose suitable conditions to ensure that there are no such apprehensions as far as the applicant is concerned.

In this view of the matter and considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011)1 SCC 694, this Court is inclined to consider this application.

In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to the FIR No. 11199050220616 of 2022 registered with Valia Police Station, District Bharuch, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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;

(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 10.08.2022 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 not enter in the limits of village Kondh for a period of six months.

(f) furnish the address of residence to the I. O. outside where the applicant would be residing during such period at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Officer concerned;

(g) shall mark his presence once in month in the nearest Police Station as may be decided by the Investigating Officer concerned.

(h) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if having passports shall surrender the same before the Trial Court within a week.

Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to file an application for police remand of the applicant to the competent Magistrate, if he thinks it just and proper and learned Magistrate would decide it on merits. 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.

At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted.