Heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr.M.M.Saiyed for the applicants and learned APP, Mr.L.B.Dabhi for the respondent No.1-State.
The present application is filed seeking to release the applicants on anticipatory bail as they are apprehending arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.I-11 of 2012 registered with Hansot Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Secs. 307, 323, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149 of IPC, Sec.25(1)(A) of Arms Act and Sec.135 of BP Act.
At the end of arguments, learned counsel for the applicants seeks permission to withdraw this application qua applicant No.2. Permission is granted as prayed for. This application stands disposed of as withdrawn qua applicant No.2. Rule is discharged.
As far as applicant No.1 is concerned, it is submitted by learned advocate, Mr.Saiyed that no role is attributed to him except holding a sword. It is further submitted that though sword was held by him, he did not cause any injury to anybody and hence, it is requested that he may be granted anticipatory bail.
Considering the role attributed to the applicant No.1 and also considering the fact that he did not cause any injury to anybody though sword was held by him, 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 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 applicant No.1 by directing that in the event of his being arrested pursuant to FIR being C.R.No.I-11 of 2012 registered with Hansot Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Secs. 307, 323, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149 of IPC, Sec.25(1)(A) of Arms Act and Sec.135 of BP Act, he 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 that he shall :
(a) cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) remain present at concerned Police Station on 7-5-2012 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m;
(c) 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) 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) not leave India without the permission of the Court and if holding a Passport, shall surrender the same before the Trial Court immediately;
(f) Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant No.1. The applicant No.1 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.1, 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.1 to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
[M.D.SHAH,J.] radhan Top