Mansuri Hasanbhai Umarbhai vs State Of Gujarat

Dr. Ashokkumar C. Joshi, J

Heard learned Advocate Mr. Shubham Jhajharia for the Applicant and learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt, for the Respondent - State of Gujarat.

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 F I R N o . 1 1 2 0 6 0 4 3 2 1 0 8 1 7 o f 2 0 2 1 registered with Mehsana Taluka Police Station, District: Mehsana for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection the aforesaid FIR and in this connection the earlier application filed by the Applicant before the learned Sessions Court came to be dis-allowed. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that in the present case the role attributed to the present applicant is that he is the father of the son who had actually as per the allegation inflicted blows. He has further submitted that the present application may kindly be allowed.

Learned Advocate for the Applicant has further argued that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation and trial also and will not flee from justice.

Per contra, Ms. Monali Bhatt, 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. She has urged that in all there are four accused and the present accused was having a wooden log (Dhoka) in his hand. She has further stated that in all there were five persons injured and were admitted in the hospital for four to five days and therefore the bail application may not be entered

Having heard the arguments advanced by 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,

(a) as per catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court there are mainly two factors which are required to be considered by this court;

(i) prima facie case

(ii) requirement of accused for custodial interrogation.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is an undisputed fact that present applicant is the the father of the son who was just present with the wooden log (Dhoka). Further it is undisputed fact that all the injured victims are discharged from the hospital, this court is 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 Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- Anr. reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and 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 his arrest in connection with the aforesaid FIR on executing a personal bond of Rs.15000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions:

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

(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 08 . 12 . 2021 between 12.00 p.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 the remand application without being influenced of the observations made by this Court;

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. Direct service is permitted.