Rameshchandra Labhshankar Joshi vs State Of Gujarat

B.N. Karia, J

By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed to release him on

anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered as C.R No.11205013210159 of 2021 before Mankuva Police Station,

District: Kutch for the offence under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the 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.

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.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondentÂState has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and

gravity of the offence.

Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the papers.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, it appears that the land in question was purchased by the

applicant on 11.12.2003 by way of a registered sale deed and Entry No.781 was mutated on 12.01.2004 giving effect to the said sale deed. It further

appears that the applicant had sold the property in the year 2005 and the entry of transaction of 2005 is also certified by the revenue authorities and

the complainant has suppressed the facts and has not disclosed true and correct facts in the FIR. It also appears that the complainant is not connected

with the land in question bearing Survey No.162P or transactions in any manner. The alleged offence is said to have been committed between

18.11.2003 â€" 12.01.2004 and the FIR was lodged on 09.04.2021 and no explanation was given about the application made in 2021. No proceedings

are initiated by the Competent Authority under the Tenancy Act. 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. 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 the case of

Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors., as reported at (1980) 2 SCC 665.

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.11205013210159 of 2021 before Mankuva Police Station, District: Kutch for the offence under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal

Code, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/Â (Rupees 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 07.06.2021 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;

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.

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Police Station through fax or email forthwith.