Moinkhan Abdullaziz Pathan vs State Of Gujarat

Dr. A. P. Thaker, J

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

[2] By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant original accused has prayed to release

him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR No.11191010200024 of 2020 registered with Madhavpura Police Station,

District:Ahmedabad for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

[3] Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is a Clerk and there is no signature of the applicant on purported documents and

accused no.1 came to him for typing work and, accordingly, he has typed it. He further submitted that purported power of attorney is already

cancelled. He submitted that since entire case is based on documentary evidence, custodial interrogation is not required. He submitted that nature of

allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides the applicant is available during the course of investigation

and will not flee away from the justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions.

[4] 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. Learned advocate for the

applicant would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant to oppose such application on

merits may be kept open.

[5] Mr.Himanshu Patel, 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. He has submitted that the applicant has identified himself as an advocate and at his instance all the

documents are prepared. He further submitted that another offence of this kind is also committed by the applicant after this incident. He, therefore,

prayed to reject present application.

[6] Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the papers. The Court has considered following aspects:-

(i) The applicant is a Typist and entire case is based on documentary evidence.

(ii) This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors.,

as reported at (1980) 2 SCC 665 and in the case of Sushila Agarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2020 SC 831.

(iii) This Court has also taken into consideration the assurance given on behalf of the applicant that he will abide by all conditions that may be imposed

by this Court.

[7] 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 applicant.

[8] In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR No.11191010200024

of 2020 registered with Madhavpura Police Station, District: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 that the applicant shall :

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

(b) remain present at concerned Police Station on 18.8.2020 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;

[9] 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 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. Application is disposed of accordingly. Direct service through e-mail/fax or any other electronic mode is

permitted.