This application has been preferred by the applicant in connection with FIR being C.R. No.5006/2012 registered with Gondal Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 66-1B, 65(A)(E), 116B, 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The applicant, apprehending his arrest, has preferred this application under Section 438 CrPC. The application made earlier for grant of anticipatory bail by the present applicant-accused has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot on 21.04.2012.
Learned advocate appearing for the applicant Mr. R.B. Soni urges that no role is attributed to the applicant; except that he is an employee of the co-accused. He further urges that the co-accused runs a grossery shop and to assist him, he has been employed and in such circumstances, he is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in [2011 (1) SC 694].
Learned APP Mr. M.G. Nanavati appearing for the State has submitted that there is no dispute as the applicant is an employee of the co-accused. He further submits that there is no role specified anywhere qua this applicant. In the above circumstances, the applicant has made out the case for exercise of discretionary power in his favour.
Considering the submissions made, the present application is required to be allowed. It is ordered that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with FIR being C.R No. 5006 of 2012 registered with Gondal Taluka Police Station, he shall be released on bail upon on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court and subject to the conditions that he;
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make herself available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 20th July 2012 between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;
(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;
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.
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 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 made absolute to the above extent. Direct service is permitted.
(Ms.
Sonia Gokani, J.) abv/pt* Top