Komal Jaydeep Gada vs State Of Gujarat

Nirzar S. Desai, J

By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - accused have prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C. R. No.11208003221346 of 2022 registered with Gandhigram Police Station, Dist. Rajkot for the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicant will keep themselves available during the course of investigation, trial also and will not flee from justice.

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 their remand. He 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 advocate, therefore, submitted that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

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.

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 applicant.

This Court has considered following aspects,

(i) Learned advocate Ms. Khyati Nagar for learned advocate Mr. Prajapati submitted that the offence for which the anticipatory bail is prayed for by the husband out of matrimonial dispute and the present applicant is wife and now the dispute between the present applicant and original complainant is amicably settled.

(ii) Learned advocate Mr. Kakkad appearing for the original complainant tenders an affidavit dated 12.04.2023 wherein in paragraph no. 2, it is stated that the matter is settled between the parties and he has no objections if the anticipatory bail is granted to both the applicants. Affidavit is taken on record.

(iii) In view of that, as the complaint is filed on account of some matrimonial dispute which is now settled between the parties, the present applicants are required to be enlarged on bail.

(iv) In view of that, as there is no objections if the in respect of both the applicants, as the complaint is some matrimonial dispute between the parties, the application requires to be allowed by grating the anticipatory bail to both the applicants.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required, I am inclined to consider the case of the applicant.

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 applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with FIR being C. R. No.11208003221346 of 2022 registered with Gandhigram Police Station, Dist. Rajkot on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with each one surety each 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 27.04.2023 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 them 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 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 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.

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.