Ganpatji Dahyaji Thakor vs State Of Gujarat

Ashutosh J. Shastri, J

RULE. Mr. J.K. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent â€" State.

Present application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking Anticipatory Bail as the applicant is apprehending arrest in

connection F.I.R. bearing C.R. No.1121600420028020 registered with Dabhoda Police Station, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406,

465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B.

Mr. Kartik Pandya, learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is an innocent person, wrongly arraigned in prosecution, just

on the basis of the statement of the co-accused. In fact, there is no role played by the applicant in any form and further even if the FIR assertion is to

be taken as it is, then also, the applicant is not monetarily benefited, nor having any relations with other co-accused persons. On the contrary, it

appears from the entire assertion that he is merely present and that would not connect him to the main offence. Apart from that, Mr. Pandya has

further submitted that on the similar role, some three co-accused have been enlarged on bail by the learned Sessions Court and the co-accused who

has even put signature on the Pedhinama, has also been granted regular bail and when that be so, there is hardly any case made out against the

applicant. Apart from that, it has been submitted that co-accused who purchased the land in question i.e. Kalpesh Desai, who filed a petition for

quashing before this Court being Criminal Misc. Application No. 9280 of 2020 in which, on entertaining such petition, vide order dated 07.07.2020,

protection was extended to other co- accused persons, who on the contrary, purchased the land in question and who appears to be the main accused

person as well. Since the applicant is no connection whatsoever, the Court may kindly consider, since all other accused persons are under protection.

As against this Mr. Mitesh Amin, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent â€" State has submitted that the role which has been played by the

applicant is examined by the court below and rightly exercised the discretion by not granting the benefit. However, Mr. Amin, learned Public

Prosecutor could not withstand to the circumstance that other co-accused persons who are on the contrary having a specific role have been enlarged

on bail and further in a petition for quashing by the main accused person is also protected and since the applicant is ready and willing to abide by any

of the condition, learned Public Prosecutor has left it to the discretion of the Court.

Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the aforesaid peculiarity of circumstance

prevailing on record, this Court is of the opinion that case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, without much examining the material at

this, with suitable terms and conditions, the Court is inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. This Court has also taken into

consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in [2011] 1

SCC 694, wherein, the Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors.

reported in [1980] 2 SCC 565.

Learned Counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.

In the result, this application is allowed. It is directed that, in the event, the applicant herein is arrested pursuant to F.I.R. bearing C.R.

No.1121600420028020 registered with Dabhoda Police Station, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten

Thousand only) with one surety of like amount on following conditions :-

[a] shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;

[b] shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 10th August,2020 between 11.00 am to 2.00 pm;

(c) shall not hamper the investigation in any manner nor shall directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness so as to

dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer;

[d] shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change the residence

till the final disposal of the case or till further orders;

[e] will not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if is holding a Passport, shall surrender the same before the trial Court immediately.

[f] It would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand, if h considers it just and proper and the concerned Magistrate would

decide it on merits.

[g] 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 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.

Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

The Registry is directed to communicate this order by fax or e-mail to the trial court.