Jyotikaben Ramanbhai Valand vs State Of Gujarat

A.G.Uraizee, J

RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants original accused have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in case of their arrest in connection with the FIR No. 11196003200252 of 2020 before Manjalpur Police Station, Vadodara city for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 447, 465, 467, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

Heard Mr. Maharshi Patel, learned advocate for HL Patel Advocates for the applicant and Mr. Hardik Soni, learned APP for the respondent No.1.

Mr Patel, submits that the impugned FIR is filed after 20 years. It is his further submission that the original complainant had filed suit in the civil court in respect of the disputed land which is dismissed. He submits that immediately after the dismissal of the suit, the impugned FIR is filed. He submits that a purely civil dispute is given colour of criminal offence. It is his submission that some of the accused persons have approached this court under section 482 of the Code for quashing of the impugned FIR which petition is admitted and the applicants thereof are protected. He also submits that some of the accused persons are released on anticipatory bail. He, therefore, submits that looking to the nature of allegation and the evidence, the applicants may be released on anticipatory bail on appropriate terms and conditions.

Mr. Soni, learned APP has opposed this bail application. He submits that the impugned FIR bornes out clear allegation against the applicants along with other co-accused persons. It is his submission that the learned Sessions Court has also in detail discussed the role of the applicants while rejecting the bail application. He, therefore, submits that the applicants may not be released on bail .However, he submits that if the Court is inclined to release the applicants on anticipatory bail, reasons may not be assigned on the merits of the case.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, 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 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. as reported at [2011] 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors., as reported at (1980) 2 SCC 665.

In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicants herein being arrested pursuant to FIR registered as FIR No. 11196003200252 of 2020 before Manjalpur Police Station, Vadodara city , the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that the applicants shall :

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

(b) remain present at concerned Police Station on 29.10.2020 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

(c) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

(d) 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) at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders;

(f) not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the 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 Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicants on bail. Rule is made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly.

Registry is directed to send the copy of the order through email or Fax to the concerned trial Court.