1. Rule.
Mr.Maulik Nanvati, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State waives service of Rule for the respondent-State.
2. Mr.Nanavati, learned senior counsel with Mrs.V.D.Nanavati, learned counsel for the applicants seeks permission to withdraw the application at this stage qua respondent Nos.2 and 4. Permission as prayed for, is granted.
3. This application is filed seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with First Information Report being CR No.I-53 of 2012 registered with Rajula Police Station, District: Amreli for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Mr.Nanavati, learned senior counsel with Mrs.V.D.Nanavati, learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicant No.1 is father-in-law of the original accused no.5 and applicant No.3 is wife of applicant No.2. Applicant No.1 is old aged and suffering from serious ailment. It is submitted that in the instant case, the husband of original accused No.5-Jalpaben has committed suicide. Applicant No.1 and applicant No.3 is father and sister-in-law of Jalpaben-original accused No.5. The marriage of the deceased Bharatbhai with Jalpaben was solemnized before 15 years. It is true that before committing suicide, as per the prosecution case, the deceased left alleged suicide note and the Sessions Court rejected the anticipatory bail application only relying upon the said suicidal note, but, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and more particularly considering the FIR, no specific role is attributed to applicant Nos.1 and 3. It is further submitted that the deceased-Bharatbhai alongwith his wife was residing at Rajula, where as the applicant Nos.1 and 3 were residing at Junagadh. Thus, they were not residing under one roof and therefore, the application may be granted.
4. Heard Learned APP for the respondent - State.
5. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, so also considering the the role attributed to the applicant Nos.1 and 3 in the FIR, the old age of the applicant No.1, the fact that applicant No.3 happens to be a wife of applicant No.2 and further the fact that applicant No.1 and 3 were not residing under one roof with the deceased, this Court is of the opinion that the instant application deserves to be allowed qua applicant Nos.1 and 3.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 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.
7. Learned counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.
8. In the result, this application is allowed qua applicant Nos.1 and 3 by directing that in the event of the applicant Nos.1 and 3 being arrested pursuant to FIR being CR No.I-53 of 2012 registered with Rajula Police Station, District: Amreli, 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 23.6.2012 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 applicants, 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Rule is partly made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
[J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.] GIRISH Top