The instant application is filed u/s.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Antarsuba police station C.R.No.-I-6 of 2012 regarding the offences punishable u/ss.365, 395, 143, 146, 147, 506(2), 504, 323 and 114 of the IPC.
Mr.Thakkar, learned advocate for the applicants, at the outset, took me through the relevant part of the FIR. He also took me through the papers showing that a civil dispute pending in this matter since 2008. He further drew my attention to order passed by revenue authority on 19.3.2012 and submitted that this order gave reason to the complainant to implicate as many as 11 accused persons in the FIR, as accused persons and out of the 11 accused persons, 7 accused have already been released on bail by the trial Court. He further submitted that as a matter of fact, on 31.3.2012, the complainant side assaulted the accused side and drew my attention to the FIR registered by one Kamuben against the complainant side. It is submitted that the said FIR came to be registered at 12 in the noon on 31.3.2012 and as a counterblast, the instant FIR came to be lodged and registered at 4.30 p.m. On 31.3.2012. He further submitted that in the instant matter, during the course of investigation, as per the report of the investigating police officer dated 2.4.2012, the offence alleged by the complainant punishable u/s.395 of the IPC has been deleted.
Mr.Nanavati, learned APP for the respondent - State as well as Mr.Desai, learned advocate for the complainant opposed this application. Mr.Desai, learned advocate submitted that at the instance of the accused, the hospital authority did not issue a certificate containing correct details. As a matter of fact, the injured had sustained fracture injury. It is further submitted that in that connection, even an application was given to the concerned Medical Officer of the hospital. He drew my attention to the affidavits filed by original complainant as well as by the victim in this case. However, about the nature of injury sustained by the injured, there appears to be some dispute. However, no final conclusion is arrived at by this Court for the simple reason that admittedly, at present, the injured is not taking any treatment in the hospital and he is today not in hospital.
Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, so also considering the FIR and the role attributed to the applicants and further the fact that as reveals from the police papers, the offence punishable u/s.395 of the IPC has been deleted and considering the fact that out of 11 accused persons, arraigned as accused in the FIR, 7 have been released on bail by the trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that the application deserves to be granted.
This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Reported in [2011]1 SCC 694, wherein the Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Reported in [1980]2 SCC 565.
Learned counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.
In the result, this application is allowed by directing that in the event of the applicants herein being arrested pursuant to FIR being Antarsuba police station C.R.No.-I-6 of 2012, the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with one surety of like amount on following conditions :-
[a] shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required.
[b] shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 11.7.2012 between 11:00 am to 2:00 pm. [c] shall not hamper the investigation in any manner nor shall directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer;
[d] shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change the residence till the final disposal of the case or till further orders;
[e] will not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if is holding a Passport, shall surrender the same before the trial Court immediately [f] it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand, if he considers it just and proper and the concerned Magistrate would decide it on merits.
[g] despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicants. The applicants 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.
For modification and/or deletion of any of the conditions herein above, the applicant/s will be at liberty to approach the concerned Court and such Court shall decide the application for modification and/or deletion of any of the conditions of this order in accordance with law.
At the trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage, made by this Court while enlarging the applicants on bail.
Rule made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly.
Direct service is permitted.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.)(binoy) Top