The instant application is filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Jam Khambhalia Police Station, District Jamnagar, CR No. I - 214 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
Mr.
Lakhani, Ld. Sr. Counsel with Mr. HC Dattani, Ld. Advocate for the applicant, at the outset, submitted that considering the prosecution case, the only role attributed to the applicant - accused is that he signed the sale-deed as a witness. My attention was drawn to order dated 2/4/2012 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2008/2012 releasing the co-accused Naranbhai Choudhary on anticipatory bail and in the said order, this Court observed that the said accused was a witness in the document of alleged sale-deed and he was not beneficiary and no role was attributed to the said accused in the alleged offence of fraud. It is, therefore, submitted that the case of the applicant - accused is in complete parity with the role attributed to said co-accused Naranbhai, who came to be released on anticipatory bail by this Court. It is further submitted that on the ground that other co-accused did not derive any benefit out of the transaction, Govind Saman Chavda and Jetha Merag came to be released on anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders dated 11/5/2012 passed in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 5423/2012 and 5425/2012. It is further submitted that considering the copy of the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer [IO] before the Sessions Court, it has been stated on oath by the IO that the applicant - accused signed sale-deed in the capacity as Panch. It is, therefore, submitted that the application may be allowed.
Mr.
Shah, Ld. APP for the respondent - State has vehemently opposed this application.
Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, so also considering the role attributed to the applicant - accused and considering the earlier orders passed by this Court, referred to above, in connection with other co-accused persons, this Court is of the opinion that the application deserves to be allowed.
Having perused 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 Jam Khambhalia Police Station, District Jamnagar, CR No. I - 214 of 2011, 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 25/06/2012 between 11:00 am and 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Rule made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly.
Direct service is permitted.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.) * Pansala.
Top