1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2011
  6. /
  7. January

Janaksinhji vs State

High Court Of Gujarat|28 April, 2011


Learned APP, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent - State.
Learned Senior Advocate submits that dispute arising out of the land in question between the complainant - mother [deceased] and the applicant. It is further submitted that entries in the revenue record with regard to the subject land of the complaint will be restored. Learned Senior Advocate placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. Reported in 2010(1) GLH 184 with regard to offence under Section 467 of the IPC. It is further submitted that the applicant has roots in the society, will not flee from justice and by imposing suitable conditions, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
Heard Learned APP for the respondent - State.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused and punishment prescribed for the alleged offences, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, 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.
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 applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR being CR No.I 57/2007 with Muli Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 477 & 177 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of like amount on following conditions :-
[a] shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required.
[b] shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 3rd May , 2011 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 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 made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly.
Direct service is permitted.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.) *pvv Top
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Janaksinhji vs State


High Court Of Gujarat

28 April, 2011