1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Nasimaben vs State

High Court Of Gujarat|28 June, 2012
1. All these applications are filed by the applicants-lady accused persons seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Salaya Police Station, District-Jamnagar, C.R.No. I-16/2012 pertaining to the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120(B) of the IPC.
2. Mr. Shastri, learned Advocate for the applicants, at the outset, took me through the relevant part of the F.I.R. and submitted that so far as the complainant is concerned, he was trustee in past, but he voluntarily left the trust in the month of March, 2002. It is further submitted that the complainant had some business rivalry with brother of the President and therefore, to settle said rivalry, the false complaint is filed against the applicants-accused herein, who are lady members as well as who had no connection whatsoever about what transacted in the trust for any dispute, which occurred prior to their becoming trustees. It is further submitted that in the FIR, a change report dated 24/01/2012 has been highlighted, but as a matter of fact, the said change report was withdrawn on 8.2.2012 and none of the alleged affected trustees of the said change report have ventilated any grievance. It is further submitted that the FIR is suspiciously belated FIR. It is submitted that while rejecting the anticipatory bail applications of the applicants, the learned Sessions Judge observed that the applicants are absconding. As a matter of fact, the applicants are lady-accused persons and as soon as they came to know about the FIR having been registered, immediately filed anticipatory bail applications, and as soon as the said applications came to be dismissed on 7.6.2012, they have filed these applications in this Court.
3. Mr. Kodekar, learned APP for the respondent-State opposed these applications.
4. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, so also considering the relevant part of the FIR and the role attributed to the applicants by the prosecution, so also considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of accusation levelled by the prosecution and further the fact that all the applicants are lady members of one family, this Court is of the opinion that the applications deserve to be granted.
5. 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.
6. Learned counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.
7. In the result, this applications are allowed by directing that in the event of the applicants herein being arrested pursuant to FIR being, C.R.No. I-16/2012, Salaya Police Station, District-Jamnagar, 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 10.07.2012 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 accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.) Ashish N.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Nasimaben vs State


High Court Of Gujarat

28 June, 2012