Ashokbhai Ganpatbhai Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned Advocate Mr.R. J. Goswami on behalf of the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Raval on behalf of the respondent-State, and learned Advocate Mr.Jarjeeskhan for the First Informant.

By way of this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant – original accused prays for being released on anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.11195034210802 of 2021 registered with Palanpur East Police Station, Palanpur, District Banaskantha on 9.10.2021 for offences punishable under Sections 376, 406, and 420 of IPC.

Learned Advocate Mr.Goswami for the applicant would would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and the allegation in the present FIR that the applicant had not stated that he was married is not true. Learned Advocate Mr.Goswami would further submit that the the present applicant was not having any antecedents of having involved in any criminal activities and the applicant is a social worker and he has been doing several activities of social nature for the public. Learned Advocate Mr.Goswami would submit that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court and requests this Court to protect the present applicant by granting him anticipatory bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has vehemently opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Learned APP would submit that having regard to the gravity of offence, releasing the present applicant on anticipatory bail may not be in the interest of the investigation and requests this Court not to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant.

Learned Advocate Mr.Jarjeeskhan appearing on behalf of the First Informant has submitted that the First Informant was being threatened and whereas an application was given to the Superintendent of Police, Palanpur, copy whereof is also placed on record.

Considering the submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective parties and having perused the documents on record as well as the investigation papers, following relevant aspects are noted by this Court:

The allegation made in the FIR by the First Informant being that she had entered into a relationship with the present applicant believing the promise of the applicant that he would marry her and whereas later on the First Informant had come to know that the applicant was already married. Prima facie the said allegation cannot be believed, more particularly considering the statement/averment in the FIR itself where the First Informant says that since the applicant was also a resident of Palanpur she was knowing him. Furthermore, the present applicant at that time was aged about 40 years and in absence of any special circumstances, the reasonable inference could be drawn that the applicant would have been married at that time and whereas FIR does not reveal any false statement made by the applicant that at the relevant point of time he was not married;

It also appears that at the relevant point of time, the First Informant was aged 30 years and whereas before entering into a relationship, she was well aware of the consequence thereof. Prima facie there was a consensual relationship between the parties and later on for whatever reason, the First Informant was feeling aggrieved and, therefore, the present FIR has been filed.

Having regard to the circumstances noted above, 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 FIR No.11195034210802 of 2021 registered with Palanpur East Police Station, Palanpur, District Banaskantha on 9.10.2021, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory 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 that the applicant:

(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;

(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 25.07.2022 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 at the time of execution of bond, furnish the present address to the Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change his residence till the final disposal of the case or till further orders;

(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if having passport shall surrender the same before the Trial Court within a week;

(g) shall not in any manner try to establish contact with the First Informant.

As regards the submission of learned Advocate Mr.Jarjeeskhan of the First Informant being threatened, in case of any such application or complaint by the present First Informant, the concerned Authorities are directed to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

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.