All the three applications are filed by the applicants-accused persons u/s.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Odhav Police Station C.R. No.-I-258 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 294(b), 324, 506(2) r/w 114 of IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Prohibition Act.
Mr.
Saiyed, learned advocate for the applicants-accused, at the outset, submitted that considering the role attributed to the applicants in the FIR filed by the complainant, so also he submitted that pertaining to the instant incident even the applicant Govindbhai lodged prior FIR against the complainant and his party regarding the serious offence punishable under Section 395, etc. It is further submitted that the alleged incident occurred on account of very trafficking dispute. It is further submitted that in the FIR lodged by the applicants' side valuable golden ornaments came to be looted. It is further submitted that on complainant's side neither the complainant nor any witness is at present undergoing any treatment in hopital.
Heard Mr. Kodekar and learned APP for the respondent-State.
Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the side, so also considering the role attributed to the applicants in the FIR as well as considering the contents of the FIR lodged by the applicant Govindbhai against the complainant and his party, this Court is of the opinion that the application deserves to be allowed.
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 applicants. 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, these applications are allowed by directing that in the event of the applicants herein being arrested pursuant to FIR being Odhav Police Station C.R. No.-I-258 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 30.6.2012 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 applicants 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 made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly.
11. Direct service is permitted.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.)(Ashish N.) Top