Sunil @ Gappu Surendrasinh … vs State Of Gujarat on 21 September, 2017

R/CR.MA/22605/2017 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 22605 of 2017

SUNIL @ GAPPU SURENDRASINH BUTOLA(RAJPUT)….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT….Respondent(s)

Appearance:
MR JM PANCHAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH K J PANCHAL, ADVOCATE
for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR LR PUJARI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI

Date : 21/09/2017

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned
Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

2. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, for bail in connection with C.R.
No.I – 19 of 2017 registered with Amraiwadi Police Station
for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 114
of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 7 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court
through the averments in the FIR and pointed out that except
two specific allegations in relation to the demand of specified

Page 1 of 5

HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Fri Sep 22 01:01:16 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/22605/2017 ORDER

sum of money and its deposit in the account of the petitioner,
other allegations against all the accused are general in
nature. Learned counsel also invited attention to the fact that
the allegation in the complaint suggest that after a week of
marriage the demand for dowry was initiated by the petitioner
and his family whereas within one week of the marriage on
the occasion of the birth date of the deceased as well as
marriage anniversary of her cousin brother and the reception
for the deceased which was not earlier arranged and which
was arranged on 18.11.2016 a gift meant for the deceased
was transferred in two instalments of Rs.20,000/- and
Rs.5,000/- in the account of the petitioner in absence of the
account of the deceased who had then, recently married and
had no account. It was submitted that no demand of dowry is
specified anywhere in the FIR. It was also pointed out that on
the contrary the petitioner/his family had bought gold
ornaments worth more than Rs.16.00 lacs for their family, and
on 15.11.2016 the gold ornaments were also bought for the
deceased in her name by the accused persons, and therefore,
in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner
there could not have been a demand of small amount of
Rs.25,000/- when huge sum of money of Rs.1.00 lakh was
spend for the deceased.

4. Learned APP while opposing the bail application would
contend that unfortunate incident had occurred within a short
span of marriage and the deceased was hardly aged 20 years
and could not have consumed her life in absence of
harassment to her. It was submitted that specific allegations
have been made against the husband as regards demand of

Page 2 of 5

HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Fri Sep 22 01:01:16 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/22605/2017 ORDER

dowry by him and the said sum was actually paid into his
account by the complainant.

5. Having considered the rival contentions and without
assigning any detailed reasons as the parties do not invite the
same, in the opinion of this Court, the case for admitting the
petitioner to bail is made out in absence of any apprehension
of the petitioner tampering with the evidence or threatening
the witnesses or fleeing from justice.

6. Hence, the application is allowed and applicant is ordered
to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No.I – 19 of
2017 registered with Amraiwadi Police Station, on
executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)
with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse
liberty;

[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the
prosecution;

[c] surrender his passport, if any, to the lower court
within a week;

[d] not leave the territory of India without prior
permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;

[e] mark presence in the concerned police station once
in a calendar month;

[f] furnish the present address of residence along with
the proof to the I.O. concerned and also to the
Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall
indicate change of residential address if any to the

Page 3 of 5

HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Fri Sep 22 01:01:16 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/22605/2017 ORDER

trial court.

6.1 The competent authority will release the applicant only if
he is not required in connection with any other offence for the
time being.

6.2 If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the
Sessions Judge concerned will be free to take appropriate
action in the matter.

6.3 Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having
jurisdiction to try the case.

6.4 It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify
and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with
law.

6.5 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.

7. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service
is permitted.

(G.R.UDHWANI, J.)
syed/

Page 4 of 5

HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Fri Sep 22 01:01:16 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/22605/2017 ORDER

Page 5 of 5

HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Fri Sep 22 01:01:16 IST 2017

Leave a Comment

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