Rizwan Usman Mansuri 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.11196008201028 of 2020 before J.P. Road Police Station, District: Vadodara

for the offence punishable under Sections 408, 420, 468, 471, 474 and 114 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. That applicant has shown his bondafides by depositing Rs.50,000/Â before the District

and Sessions Court, Vadodara on 15.12.2020 as per the order dated 09.12.2020 passed by this Court. He further submits that coÂaccused have been

released on anticipatory bail by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 17564 of 2020 and Criminal Misc. Application

No. 18611 of 2020 vide orders dated 11.11.2020 and 08.12.2020 respectively, thus on the ground of parity, the present applicant may be released on

bail.

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 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.

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 facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the nature of allegations made against the applicant in the FIR as well as

considering the ground of parity, as two coÂaccused of this offence against whom similar allegations were made, have been released on bail by this

Court and out of 9 accused persons four accused persons have been granted regular bail by the competent Court of law as well as bona fides shown

by the present applicant by depositing Rs.50,000/Â, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on

anticipatory bail.

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.11196008201028 of 2020 before J.P. Road Police Station, District: Vadodara, 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 24.12.2020 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;

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.