RUPALBA @ KIRANBA RAVIRAJSINH JADEJA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

RULE. Learned APP Ms.Moxa Thakkar Oza waives

service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

This is an application under Section 438 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for anticipatory bail in

the event of her arrest in connection with FIR registered

at C.R. No.I-84 of 2016 before Limdi Police Station,

District Surendranagar for the offence under Sections

306, 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections

3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the

applicant would submit that considering the nature of

offence, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory

bail by imposing suitable conditions.

On the other hand, the learned APP appearing

for the respondent-State has opposed this application and

granting anticipatory bail to the applicant looking to

the nature and gravity of the offence.

I have heard the learned Advocates appearing

for the respective parties and perused the investigation

papers and have also taken into consideration the facts

of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to

the applicant- accused and 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.

Following aspects are also considered:-

I. The applicant is sister-in-law of the deceased and on the same day, she was married and since then residing with her family at Rajkot.

II. The applicant being a lady accused, custodial interrogation may not be necessary.

Learned Advocate for the applicant on

instructions states that the applicant is ready and

willing to abide by all the conditions, including

impositions of conditions with regard to the powers of

Investigating Agency to file an application before the

competent court for his remand. He would further submit

that upon filing of such application by the Investigating

Agency, the right of applicant accused to oppose such

application on merits may be kept open.

In the result, the present application is

allowed by directing that in the event of arrest of the

applicant herein in connection with FIR registered at

C.R. No.I-84 of 2016 before Limdi Police Station, District

Surendranagar, the applicant shall be released on bail on

her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten

thousands only) with one surety of the like amount on the

following conditions that she shall:

(a) cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;

(b) remain present at the concerned Police Station on 10.01.2017 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 him/them 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 his 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 the same 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 is made absolute.