Hardik Gordhanbhai Raval vs State Of Gujarat

Divyesh A. Joshi, J

Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat.

The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11210021240053/2023 registered with the Katargam Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 498(A), 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the so-called incident has taken place for the period between 01.01.202 to 20.01.2024 for which, the FIR has been lodged on 20.01.2024 and the applicant has been arrested in connection with the same on 22.01.2024 and since then, he is in judicial custody. Learned advocate submitted that now the investigation is completed and after submission of the chargesheet, the present application is preferred. Learned advocate submitted that FIR is filed against total 5 accused persons, however so far as the sister-in-laws are concerned, they are enlarged on anticipatory bail by the trial court, whereas in-laws have been considered by this Court and the present applicant is the husband. Learned advocate submitted that at the time of considering the bail application of the co-accused, ill-health and mental condition of the victim was considered by this Court as she was suffering from depression and she was regularly taking treatment from the doctor concerned and in support of the same, documents are placed on record. It is, therefore, urged that considering the nature of the offence and on the ground of parity, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

Learned APP for the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that the role of the present applicant is clearly spelt out from the papers of the chargesheet and, hence, the present application may not be entertained.

Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers of the investigation and considered the allegations levelled against the applicant and the role played by the applicant. It is found out from the record that the present application is preferred after submission of the chargesheet and now the investigation is completed and the applicant is in jail since 22.01.2024. I have considered the role attributed to the present applicant at the time of commission of crime and the role attributed to the co-accused, who have been considered by this Court as well as by the trial court. It is also found out that at the time of considering bail application of the co-accused, medical condition was considered as she was suffering from depression. Therefore considering the above factual aspects and on the ground of parity, the present application deserves to be allowed.

This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40 as well as in case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11210021240053/2023 registered with the Katargam Police Station, Surat on executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

[b] not act in a manner injuries to the interest of the prosecution;

[c] surrender passport, if any, to the concerned court within a week;

[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the concerned court;

[e] mark presence before the concerned Police Station on alternate Monday of every English calendar month for a period of six months between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;

[f] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;

The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the concerned Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law.

At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.

Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.