Zeel Paresh Patel vs State Of Gujarat

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned Advocate Mr. Manish J. Patel on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi on behalf of the respondent-State.

Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent- State.

By way of this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant prays for being released on anticipatory bail apprehending her arrest in connection with FIR No. 11196007220271 of 2022 registered with Gorva Division Police Station, Vadodara on 23.05.2022 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120-B, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned Advocate Mr. Patel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Lacs Only) before the concerned Trial Court within a period of four weeks. Learned Advocate further submit that nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage may not be necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory 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 her 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.

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.

Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties, following aspects are considered by this Court:

[1] That the applicant though being names as proprietor of the firm concerned, the allegation of having taken the money, is more on the co-accused i.e husband of the present applicant.

[2] That according to the applicant, the entire office was being managed by her husband, who is at present in custody.

[3] That the applicant being a lady accused aged 24 years of age and the voluntary submission by the applicant that to show her bonafides, she is ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Lacs Only) before the concerned Trial Court within a period of four weeks.

Having regard to the circumstances in question, and considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011)1 SCC 694, this Court is inclined to consider this application.

In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR No. 11196007220271 of 2022 registered with Gorva Division Police Station, Vadodara the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of like amount, on the following conditions:

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

(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 01.07.2022 between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;

(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(d) shall 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) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change her residence till the final disposal of the case or till further orders;

(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if having passports shall surrender the same before the Trial Court within a week.

(g) shall deposit an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/-( Rupees Twenty Lacs Only) before the concerned Trial Court within a period of four weeks failing which it would be open for the learned APP to file appropriate application before this Court.

Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to file an application for police remand of the applicant to the competent Magistrate, if he thinks it just and proper and learned Magistrate would decide it on merits. 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 to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted.