Muliben Gamabhai Hemabhai Solanki vs State Of Gujarat

Ilesh J. Vora, J

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

[2] 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 C.R.No. 11195035210175 of 2021 registered with Palanpur Taluka Police Station, District : Banaskantha, for the

offenses punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(1), 313, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

[3] Learned advocate for the applicant submits that considering the nature of allegations, role attributed to the applicant, the applicant may be enlarged

on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions. Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to

abide by all the conditions including imposition of condition with regard to power of investigating agency to file an application before the competent

Court for her remand. It is further submitted that upon filing such application by the investigating agency, the right of the 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.

[4] Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent â€" State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and

gravity of the offence.

[5] Having heard learned advocates for the respective 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 applicant-accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am

inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

[6] This Court has considered following aspects :

(a) Looking to the role attributed to the present applicant, her custodial interrogation is not required.

(b) The victim and the main accused have eloped against the wish and will of the family members, and therefore, to pressurized the family members,

the name of the present applicant has been disclosed by the complainant.

[7] Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the present case and looking to the role attributed to the applicant and has also considered the

law laid down by the 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, the application deserves consideration.

[8] In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in connection

with FIR being C.R.No. 11195035210175 of 2021 registered with Palanpur Taluka Police Station, District : Banaskantha, on his executing 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 her available for interrogation whenever required;

(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 04.06.2021 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 her

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 her 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;

(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.

[10] Rule is made absolute. Registry to send a copy of this order to the concerned Jail Authority as well as learned Sessions Court forthwith through

fax and e-mail.