Harshkumar Mukeshbhai Modi vs State Of Gujarat

Vipul M. Pancholi, J

Learned advocate Mr. Mahesh Poojara has received instructions to appear on behalf of original First Informant. He is permitted to file his

Vakalatnama in the Registry.

Rule. Learned APP, Mr.Ronak Raval, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State.

By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for anticipatory

bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. I â€" 11200018200694 of 2020 registered with Dharampur Police Station, District Valsad for the

offenses punishable under Sections 395, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary.

He further submits that the applicants will keep themselves available during the course of investigation, trial also and will not flee from justice.

Learned advocate for the applicants on instructions states that the applicants are 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 their remand. He further submit that

upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicants accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open.

Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that considering the above facts, the applicants may be granted anticipatory bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent â€" State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature

and gravity of the offence.

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 applicants.

This Court has considered following aspects,

(a) age of the applicant No.1 is 19 years, whereas the age of applicant Nos. 2 and 3 is 21 years and they are studying in College and, hence, the

complainant has no objection if the applicants are granted anticipatory bail by this Court. The complainant has also filed an affidavit to the above

effect;

(b) I have perused the allegations levelled against the applicant.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case and when the complainant has no objection for the grant of bail as the applicants are students,

without going into the merits of the case, I am inclined to consider the case of the applicants.

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 565.

In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicants are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with a

FIR being C.R. No. I â€" 11200018200694 of 2020 registered with Dharampur Police Station, District Valsad on their executing personal bond of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with one surety of like amount on the following conditions:

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

(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 24.08.2020 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 concerned trial court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the concerned 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;

Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicants. The

applicants 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 applicants, 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 concerned trial court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.

Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. Registry to communicate this order to the concerned Court/Authority

through email/fax.