Pirdan S/O Javerdan Gadhavi vs State Of Gujarat

Rajendra M. Sareen, J

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

[1] 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 registered as C.R No. 11195060200460 of 2020 before Vav Police Station,

District: Banaskantha for the offences punishable under sections 379, 285 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential

Commodities Act.

[2] Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the muddamal which is recovered is not Bio-diesel and the same is Columbia oil, he is falsely

implicated in the present offence on the basis of statement of co-accused, he is having only one antecedent of the year 2012 and there is no recovery

from the present applicant. Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions also 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 his

remand. He has 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. He submits that considering the nature of allegations, role attributed to the applicant, the applicant may be

enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions.

[3] 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.

[4] Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties through Video Conferencing and perused the papers.

[5] Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts that he is falsely

implicated in the present offence on the basis of statement of co-accused, 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. 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.

[6] In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR registered as C.R

No. 11195060200460 of 2020 before Vav Police Station, District: Banaskantha, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of

Rs. 15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen 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 01.02.2021 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. and shall not indulge in this type of activities in future

and if found, the bail granted to the applicant shall stand cancelled;

(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;

[7] 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.

[8] At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on anticipatory

bail.

[9] Rule is made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly. Registry is directed to communicate this order by FAX or E-mail to the concerned

Authority.