The present application is filed seeking to release the applicants on anticipatory bail as they are apprehending arrest in connection with the complaint being C.R.No.I-19 of 2011 registered with Mavasari Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Secs. 498(A), 323, 326, 504 and 114 of IPC.
Heard learned advocate, Mr.Devdip Brahmbhatt for the applicants, learned APP,Ms.Krina Calla for the State and learned advocate, Mr.Pravin Gondaliya for the original complainant.
At the end of arguments, learned counsel, Mr.Brahmbhatt does not press this application qua applicant Nos.1 and 3 are concerned. Hence, this application stands disposed of as not pressed qua applicant Nos.1 and 3.
As far as applicant No.2 is concerned, it is to be noted that she is a lady accused and only considering the fact that she is a lady accused, without entering into the merits of the case, prima facie, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to her. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and 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 Sibia & Ors. reported in (1980)2 SC 565.
Learned counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.
In the result, this application is allowed qua the applicant No.2 by directing that in the event of the applicant No.2 being arrested pursuant to FIR being C.R.No.I-19 of 2011 registered with Mavasari Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Secs. 498(A), 323, 326, 504 and 114 of IPC, she shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount on following conditions :
(a) she shall cooperate with the investigation and make herself available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) she shall remain present at Mavasari Police Station on 24-1-2012 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m;
(c) she 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer;
(d) she shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish 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) she shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if 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 No.2. The applicant No.2 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 No.2, 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 is made absolute qua applicant No.2. Rule is discharged qua applicant Nos.1 and 3. Direct service is permitted.
[M.D.SHAH,J.] radhan Top