Javanjal Seema Bhimcharanbhai @ Seema Nikhil Soni vs State Of Gujarat

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned Advocate Mr. Shubham Jhajharia on behalf of the applicant and learned APP Mr. L. B. Dabhi on behalf of the respondent-State.

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

By way of this application, the applicant apprehending her arrest in connection with the FIR being C. R. No. 11191013211547 of 2021 registered with the Krishnanagar Police Station, Ahmedabad on 23.11.2021 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 294(b), 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, has preferred this application praying for grant of anticipatory bail.

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 for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is 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 his remand. He would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant-accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It was, therefore, prayed that no discretion may be exercised in favour of the applicant.

Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and also considering the documents on record, the following aspects are considered by this Court:

[1] Thrust of the allegations in the FIR, is against the first accused i.e. the husband of the present applicant and whereas there does not appear to be any specific allegation as regards the present applicant.

[2] The present applicant, being the wife of the accused no. 1, prima faice it appears that she has been roped in only to pressurize the accused no. 1.

[3] Even in the agreement, which is referred to in the FIR dated 03.08.2020, the applicant had signed as a witness and not as the agreement giver.

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 in [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 in (1980) 2 SCC 565. This Court has also taken into consideration the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 01.

The present applicant being a lady accused, in the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to the 11191013211547 of 2021 registered with the Krishnanagar Police Station, Ahmedabad, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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 07.07.2022 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 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 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.