Ramesh Medhu Ninama vs State Of Gujarat

Dr. Ashokkumar C. Joshi, J

This application is filed by the applicant - accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enlarging the applicant on regular bail in connection with I-C.R. No. 61/2012, registered with Chiloda Police Station, District: Gandhinagar for the offences punishable under sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and section 135 of the G. P. Act.

Heard learned advocate Mr. F. N. Soniwala for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni for the respondent - State through video conference.

Submissions of the Parties:

Learned advocate for the applicant - accused has submitted that the applicant - accused is an innocent person and is not involved in the offence in question. It is submitted that the applicant is arraign on the basis of the statement of the co-accused and is arrested through transfer warrant only. Further, the applicant has family roots in the society and therefore, he is not likely to flee away from justice. That, the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed and hence, there is no possibility of tampering or hampering with the evidence. That, he will abide by whatever conditions imposed by this Court. He has further vehemently submitted that there is no direct involvement of the applicant - accused in the present case so far as allegations are concerned. He has, therefore, prayed that discretion may kindly be exercised and grant bail to the applicant.

Per contra, learned APP has vehemently argued that there are two antecedents against the present applicant - accused. Further, the applicant was absconding and only in recent past, he came to be arrested. Further, from the charge sheet papers, prima facie case is made out against the present applicant. Therefore, it is urged that discretion may not be exercised and ultimately, he has opposed grant of bail looking to the nature and gravity of offence, involvement of the applicant - accused. He has further submitted that if the Court is inclined to grant bail then, in such case, strict conditions may be imposed to secure the presence of the applicant - accused.

Merits of the Case:

This court has considered the following aspects:

(a) as such there appears no prima facie case;

(b) charge sheet is filed;

(c) further as per the catena of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court, there are mainly three factors which are required to be considered by this Court i.e. prima facie case, availability of applicant - accused at the time of trial and tampering and hampering with the witnesses by the accused;

(d) that the learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant - accused is not likely to flee away;

(e) that the applicant - accused is in custody since 22.06.2020;

(f) the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, wherein it is held that bail is a rule and jail is an exception and there should not be pre-trial punishment.

Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the record produced in this case as well as taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of accusation, availability of the applicant - accused at the time of trial etc. and the role attributed to the present applicant - accused, the present application deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. The applicant - accused - RAMESH MEDHU NINAMA is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with I-C.R. No. 61/2012, registered with Chiloda Police Station, District: Gandhinagar on executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions that he shall:

(a) 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 any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence;

(b) maintain law and order and not to indulge in any criminal activities;

(c) furnish the documentary proof of complete, correct and present address of his residence to the Investigating Officer and to the trial Court at the time of executing the bond and shall not change his residence without prior permission of the trial Court;

(d) provide his contact numbers as well as the contact numbers of the sureties before the trial Court. In case of change in such numbers inform in writing immediately to the trial Court;

(e) file an affidavit stating his immovable properties whether self acquired or ancestral with description, location and present value of such properties before the trial Court, if any;

(f) not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court;

(g) surrender passport, if any, before the trial Court within a week. If he does not possess passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect;

(h) shall maintain all the rules and regulations framed by the Municipality regarding contemporary status of corona virus/Covid-19, State Government or by any competent authority, including social distancing.

6.1 Bail bond to be executed before the trial Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It would be open for the trial Court concerned to give time to furnish the solvency certificate if prayed for.

6.2 If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the trial Court concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action according to law. The authorities will release the applicant forthwith only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being.

Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service thorough e-mail/fax or any other electronic mode is permitted. Registry shall communicate this order by fax / e-mail to the concerned Court / authority.