Heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Sanjanwala for Mr.Kanojiya for the applicants, learned APP, Mr.Shah for the State and learned advocate, Ms.Acharya for the original complainant.
The present application is filed seeking to release the applicants on anticipatory bail as they are apprehending arrest in connection with the complaint being C.R.No.I-17 of 2011 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat for the alleged offences punishable under Secs.406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 114 of IPC.
At the end of arguments, learned Senior Counsel seeks permission to withdraw this application qua the applicant No.1. Permission is granted as prayed for. This application stands disposed of as withdrawn qua applicant No.1.
As far as applicant No.2 is concerned, it is submitted by Mr.Sanjanwala that he has not played any role. It is further submitted that he being is the son of accused No.1 has been falsely involved in this case. According to him, though the offence was allegedly committed on 5-4-2009, complaint was filed on 6-10-2011 and hence, there is a delay of about two and half years. It is also submitted that it is a pure civil dispute.
It is submitted by learned advocate, Ms.Acharya that as per role attributed to applicant No.2 is concerned, he is the son of accused No.1, who is tenant of the complainant. It is further submitted that accused No.2 went to the complainant and stated that original diary is misplaced and, therefore, requested to sign in the new diary. It is therefore urged that this application qua the applicant No.2 may also not be granted.
This Court has gone through the case diary and it is found that as far as accused No.1 is concerned, he is the tenant of the premises and rent is paid by him. However, considering the role attributed to applicant No.2 and also considering the delay in filing the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant No.2. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and 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 Sibia & Ors. reported in (1980)2 SC 565.
Learned counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.
In the result, this application is allowed qua the applicant No.2 by directing that in the event of the applicant No.2 being arrested pursuant to C.R.No.I-17 of 2011 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat for the alleged offences punishable under Secs.406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 114 of IPC, the applicant No.2 shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount on following conditions that :
(a) he shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) he shall remain present at DCB Police Station, Surat on 18-1-2012 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m;
(c) he 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer;
(d) he shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish 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) he shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if 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 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.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent qua applicant No.2. Rule is discharged qua applicant No.1. Direct service is permitted.
It is clarified that if applicant No.1 prefers regular bail before the trial court, trial court will decide it on merits, in accordance with law and without being influenced by the earlier order passed by the trial court or this order of withdrawal. Rule is discharged.
[M.D.SHAH,J.] radhan Top