Allarakhabhai Jusabhai … vs State Of Gujarat on 3 July, 2017

R/CR.MA/11467/2017 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 11467 of
2017

ALLARAKHABHAI JUSABHAI HALEPOTRA….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT….Respondent(s)

Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MANAN MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 03/07/2017
ORAL ORDER

Present is a successive bail application under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Previously Criminal Misc.
Application No. 4947 of 2017 was filed which was withdrawn on
30.03.2017.

2. The applicant has been facing the offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with
Sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act pursuant to the First
Information Report being Crime Register No. I-05 of 2017 registered
with Jetpur City Police Station, Rajkot on 19.01.2017. The present
applicant is father-in-law and original accused No.2.

3. As per the first informant, her daughter-victim had married to
accused No.1-Bashir Allarakhabhai Halepotra. The FIR contains the
allegations of harassment with reference to the offences alleged
stating that initially, the marriage span had went smoothly, but
subsequently, in-laws started harassing her daughter. The present
applicant is father-in-law – accused No.3 in the FIR. As per the
complainant, on 07.01.2017, she received telephone call from
accused No.1 about her daughter having taken poison.

Page 1 of 5

HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Tue Jul 04 01:53:29 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/11467/2017 ORDER

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli for the applicant and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Manan Mehta for the
respondent State.

5. After the first application for anticipatory bail was withdrawn by
the present applicant, subsequent development which has taken
place was order dated 19.04.2017 passed in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 7591 of 2017 in case of Shahil Bashirbhai Halepotra-
accused No.4 in the FIR whereby this Court granted the said accused
anticipatory bail. From the contents and the averments in the FIR, it
could be successfully pointed out by learned advocate for the
applicant that the allegations of harassment go parallel and the role
of the present applicant would be placed on the same pedestal to
that of Shahil Bashirbhai Halepotra-accused No.4 who was granted
anticipatory bail. Secondly, main accused No.1, it was submitted, was
released on regular bail by learned Sessions Court on 09.05.2017 in
Criminal Misc. Application No. 75 of 2017.

READ  Ashim Kumar Chakraborty And Anr.-vs-State on 24 February, 2006

5.1 Having considered the subsequent events read with the
aspects emerging from the averments in the FIR, the Court is of the
view that the discretion to release the applicant on anticipatory bail
deserves to be exercised.

6. The Court also took note of the principles laid down by the Apex
Court in Siddharam Satllingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra [AIR 2011 SC 312] and in
Jai Prakash Singh v.
State of Bihar [AIR 2012 SC 1676] and other decisions in which
parameters to be considered by the court for grant of anticipatory
bail have been set out, and applied those parameters to the facts of
the case. Since the Court was inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the
applicant-accused, even as learned Additional Public Prosecutor made
submissions to object the grant of bail, he stated that he would not

Page 2 of 5

HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Tue Jul 04 01:53:29 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/11467/2017 ORDER

invite detailed reasons. Learned advocate for the applicant also did
not press for reasons.

6.1 In the facts and circumstances obtained and for the reasons
recorded above, personal liberty of the applicant-accused deserves to
be accorded primacy over his forced arrest. The investigational needs
could be balanced by imposing appropriate conditions to be observed
by the applicant-accused including the condition of keeping the right
of the police open to ask for remand of the applicant-accused, if
required.

7. As a result of above facts and aspects, present application is
allowed and it is directed that in the event of the applicant’s arrest in
connection with the F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. I-05 of 2017 registered
with Jetpur City Police Station on 19.01.2017, he shall be released
forthwith on condition of his execution a personal bond of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only).

READ  Raj Kumar Jain & Anr vs Kundan Jain & Anr on 29 April, 2004

7.1 The anticipatory bail granted by this Court shall be further
governed and regulated by the following conditions,

[I] The applicant shall cooperate with the
investigation. He will make himself available for
interrogation and for all investigative purposes whenever
required;

[ii] The applicant shall not obstruct the process of
investigation in any manner. He shall not directly or
indirectly induce threat or extend promise to any witness
so as to dissuade and prevent such witness from
disclosing such facts as may be required, to the Court or
Police Officer;

[iii] The applicant shall at the time of execution of
bond, furnish full address of his residence and stay to the

Page 3 of 5

HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Tue Jul 04 01:53:29 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/11467/2017 ORDER

Investigating Officer as well as to the Court concerned.
He shall not change the residence without prior
intimation to the Court concerned during the pendency of
the prosecution in the criminal case;

[iv] The applicant shall not travel beyond the territory
of the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the
Court concerned;

[v] The applicant shall surrender passport, if any he is
holding, before the Court concerned immediately;

[vi] The applicant shall appear before Jetpur City Police
Station on 10.07.2017 between 11.00 am and 02.00
p.m.;

[vii] It shall remain open to the Investigating Officer to
seek and file application for remand of the applicant, if in
his discretion he considers the asking for remand of the
applicant to be just and proper for the purpose of
investigational needs. If such application for remand is
made by the Investigating Officer, the learned Magistrate
concern would consider the same on merits without
being influenced by the anticipatory bail granted.

READ  Smt Sunita vs The Executive Engineer on 13 July, 2017

8. It is clarified that despite this order, the investigating agency is
not precluded from applying before the competent Magistrate for
police remand of the applicant. It is further provided that the
applicant shall remain present before the Magistrate concerned on
the first day of such application, if made, and on all such subsequent
occasions as may be directed by the learned Magistrate in such
proceedings. This would be sufficient to treat the accused as in
judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining the application for
remand by the prosecution.

Page 4 of 5

HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Tue Jul 04 01:53:29 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/11467/2017 ORDER

8.1 The liberty available to the prosecution to seek remand shall be

without prejudice to the rights of the accused to contend against or to
seek stay against the remand. It is further clarified that the applicant
even if remanded to the police custody, after completion of the
remand period; shall be set at liberty immediately, subject to other
conditions of this anticipatory bail order, to be complied with.

8.2 It is clarified that the observations made in this order are for
the purpose of granting pre-arrest protection only. It is further
clarified that the trial court shall not be influenced by any of the
observations made in this order and the same shall be treated for the
purpose of dealing with the present application only.

9. The present application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule
is made absolute.

Direct service is permitted.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J.)

chandrashekhar

Page 5 of 5

HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Tue Jul 04 01:53:29 IST 2017

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *