SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Aakash Jaipal Aggarwal vs State Of Gujarat on 2 December, 2019

R/CR.MA/21465/2019 ORDER




NANAVATI(1933) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KAMLESH P VAIDANKAR(10135) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS NILU K VAIDANKAR(8382) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
Respondent(s) No. 1

Date : 02/12/2019

1. Rule. Learned APP Mr.Hardik Soni waives service
of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.

2. The present application is filed under Section
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(‘the Code’ for short), for regular bail in
connection with FIR being C.R. No.I­356 of 2019
registered with Vastrapur Police Station,
District Ahmedabad City, for offence under
Sections 377, Section498A, Section386, Section325, Section343, Section354, Section323,
Section500, Section294(KH) and Section114 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
applicant submits that considering the nature of
the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on
regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

4. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the
respondent­State has opposed grant of regular
bail looking to the nature and gravity of the

Page 1 of 5

Downloaded on : Mon Dec 02 22:31:01 IST 2019
R/CR.MA/21465/2019 ORDER


5. Learned advocate for the original first
informant Ms.Nilu Vaidankar opposed this
application and submitted that the applicant is
having five properties, out of which, in one
property, original first informant is residing.
Therefore, the possession of the first informant
be protected.

6. It is required to be noted that this application
is filed by the applicant accused under Section
439 of the Code for enlarging him on regular
bail. In this application, the request made by
the learned advocate for the original first
informant cannot be accepted. However, it is
open for the first informant to file appropriate
proceedings before the appropriate forum for the
said relief.

7. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the
respective parties do not press for further
reasoned order.

8. Having heard the learned advocates for the
parties and perusing the material placed on
record and taking into consideration the facts
of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of
offences, role attributed to the accused,
without discussing the evidence in detail, this
Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case
to exercise the discretion and enlarge the
applicant on regular bail.

9. This Court has also considered the following

Page 2 of 5

Downloaded on : Mon Dec 02 22:31:01 IST 2019

R/CR.MA/21465/2019 ORDER

(a) the applicant is in Jail since 09.11.2019;

(b) marriage span of the first informant with
the applicant is of more than twenty­four years;

(c) I have gone through the allegations
levelled against the applicant in the FIR and
some of the allegations are of the years 2001,
2003 and 2018;

(d) I have also perused the memo of Hindu
Marriage Petition No.2238 of 2019 filed by the
applicant under Section 13(1)(i)(ia) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the first
informant. From the memo of the said petition,
it is revealed that the said petition has been
filed on 10.10.2019. Learned advocate for the
applicant submits that a copy of the notice and
the said petition were served to the first
informant on 21.10.2019 and, thereafter, the FIR
in question is lodged on 07.11.2019;

(e) the applicant is arrested on 09.11.2019 and
the Investigating Officer has not even asked for
the remand;

(f) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
applicant further submits that the impugned FIR
is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of
the Court;

(g) it is also contended by the learned Senior
Advocate that so far as other co­accused i.e.
the father, mother and sister of the applicant
are concerned, they have preferred an
application under Section 482 of the Code for
quashing and setting aside the FIR in question

Page 3 of 5

Downloaded on : Mon Dec 02 22:31:01 IST 2019
R/CR.MA/21465/2019 ORDER

and this Court has passed an order directing the
Investigating Officer not to take any coercive
steps against the co­accused;

(h) looking to the overall facts and
circumstances of the present case, I am inclined
to consider the case of the applicant while
exercising discretion in his favour;

10. This Court has also taken into consideration the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40.

11. Hence, the present application is allowed. The
applicant is ordered to be released on regular
bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.I­356
of 2019 registered with Vastrapur Police
Station, District Ahmedabad City, on executing a
personal 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 passport, if any, to the lower
court within a week;

[d] not leave India without prior permission
of the concerned Trial Court;

[e] mark presence before the concerned
Police Station between 1st to 10th day of
every English calendar month for a

Page 4 of 5

Downloaded on : Mon Dec 02 22:31:01 IST 2019
R/CR.MA/21465/2019 ORDER

period of six months between 11:00 a.m.
and 2:00 p.m., till the filing of the

[f] furnish the present address of residence
to the Investigating Officer and also to
the Court at the time of execution of
the bond and shall not change the
residence without prior permission of
this Court;

12. The authorities will release the applicant only
if he is not required in connection with any
other offence for the time being. If breach of
any of the above conditions is committed, the
Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue
warrant or take appropriate action in the
matter. Bail bond to be executed before the
lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case.
It will be open for the concerned Court to
delete, modify and/or relax any of the above
conditions, in accordance with law.

13. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be
influenced by the prima facie observations made
by this Court in the present order.

14. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service today is permitted.


Page 5 of 5

Downloaded on : Mon Dec 02 22:31:01 IST 2019

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation