The instant application is filed u/s.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Valsad Rural police station, C.R.No.I-40 of 2012 regarding the offences punishable u/ss.376, 292A of the IPC.
Mr.Anandjiwala, learned advocate for the applicant, at the outset, took me through the relevant contents of the FIR and submitted that the instant FIR came to be filed by the prosecutrix after two years from the date of the alleged incident. He drew my attention to other relevant papers, annexed with this application as well as copy of FIR lodged by the applicant against the prosecutrix and other persons on 17.8.2010 alleging the offences punishable u/ss.506(2), 507 r/w.Section 114 of the IPC and submitted that in connection with said FIR, chargesheet was filed and even deposition of the applicant herein was also recorded on 15.3.2012 and, thereafter, on 17.3.2012, the instant FIR came to be lodged. It is further submitted that on 27.4.2010 it was the applicant, who sent the application to the concerned police station and he was receiving threats that he would be involved in serious offence by the prosecutrix herself, since the applicant had paid some money to her in advance, which she did not return, and upon demand, threat was given. It is, therefore, submitted that in light of the above background, the application may be allowed and the applicant shall co-operate the investigating police agency.
Mr.Kodekar, learned APP for the respondent - State submitted that as a matter of fact the prosecutrix had sent application to the concerned police station on 8.6.2010, but it is true that since two years, nothing was done qua her application. However, Mr.Kodekar, learned APP submitted that the applicant shall co-operate the investigating police agency.
Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, so also considering the contents of the FIR and other relevant papers annexed with this application, and the fact that the applicant had filed FIR against the prosecutrix and others, and in the said case, when the evidence of the applicant was recorded, the instant FIR came to be filed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant application deserves to be granted.
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.
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 Valsad Rural police station, C.R.No.I-40 of 2012, 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 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 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.
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.
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 applicant on bail.
Rule made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly.
Direct service is permitted.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.)(binoy) Top