R/CR.MA/21465/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 21465 of 2019
AAKASH JAIPAL AGGARWAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
Appearance:
MR SI NANAVATI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR NANAVATI
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
MR HARDIK SONI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 02/12/2019
ORAL ORDER
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
offence.
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
aspects:
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
chargesheet;
[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.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)
piyus
Page 5 of 5
Downloaded on : Mon Dec 02 22:31:01 IST 2019
