R/CR.MA/2452/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 2452 of 2020
AJMALBHAI BHIMABHAI MASAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
Appearance:
MR. ABHISHEK A JOSHI(6768) for the Applicant(s) No.
1,2,3,4
MR MITESH AMIN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) No. 1
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 04/02/2020
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned advocate for the applicants does not press
this application qua applicant Nos. 1 and 2 as
they are already arrested and subsequently
released on bail by the concerned Sessions Court.
Therefore, this application is considered qua
applicant Nos. 3 and 4 only.
2. Rule. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mitesh Amin
waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of
respondentState.
3. By way of the present application under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the
applicantaccused has prayed for anticipatory bail
in connection with the FIR being C.R.
No.A11191037200012 registered with Odhav Police
Station, Ahmedabad for the offenses punishable
under sections 498A, 323, 506(2) and 114 of the
Indina Penal Code .
4. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that
the nature of allegations are such for which
Page 1 of 5
Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 00:36:31 IST 2020
R/CR.MA/2452/2020 ORDER
custodial interrogation at this stage is not
necessary. He further submits that the applicants
will keep themselves available during the course
of investigation, trial also and will not flee
from justice.
5. Learned advocate for the applicants on
instructions states that the applicants are ready
and willing to abide by all the conditions
including imposition of conditions with regard to
powers of Investigating Agency to file an
application before the competent Court for his
remand. He further submit that upon filing of such
application by the Investigating Agency, the right
of applicants accused to oppose such application
on merits may be kept open. Learned advocate,
therefore, submitted that considering the above
facts, the applicants may be granted anticipatory
bail.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of
the respondent – State has opposed grant of
anticipatory bail looking to the nature and
gravity of the offence.
7. 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, at this stage, I am inclined
to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants.
8. This Court has considered following aspects,
(a) Applicant no.3 is lady accused and she is
sisterinlaw of the complainant, whereas
Page 2 of 5
Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 00:36:31 IST 2020
R/CR.MA/2452/2020 ORDER
applicant No.4 is the husband of applicant
no.3;
(b) all the three coaccused have been enlarged
on bail;
(c) I have considered the role attributed to the
applicants;
Looking to the overall facts and
circumstances of the present case, I am
inclined to consider the case of the
applicants.
9. This Court has also taken into consideration the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Ors., reported at [2011] 1 SCC
694, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the
law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the
case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Ors. Vs.
State of Punjab, reported at (1980) 2 SCC 565.
10. In the result, the present application is allowed.
The applicants are ordered to be released on bail
in the event of their arrest in connection with a
FIR being C.R. No.A11191037200012 registered with
Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad on their executing
personal bond of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand
Only) each with one surety of like amount on the
following conditions:
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and
make themselves available for interrogation
whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at concerned Police
Station on 11.02.2020 between 11.00 a.m. and
2.00 p.m.;
(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any
Page 3 of 5
Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 00:36:31 IST 2020
R/CR.MA/2452/2020 ORDER
inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the fact of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to
the court or to any police officer;
(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police
investigation and not to play mischief with
the evidence collected or yet to be collected
by the police;
(e) shall at the time of execution of bond,
furnish the address to the investigating
officer and the court concerned and shall not
change his residence till the final disposal
of the case till further orders;
(f) shall not leave India without the permission
of the concerned trial court and if having
passport shall deposit the same before the
concerned trial court within a week; and
(g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer
to file an application for remand if he
considers it proper and just and the learned
Magistrate would decide it on merits;
11. Despite this order, it would be open for the
Investigating Agency to apply to the competent
Magistrate, for police remand of the applicants.
The applicants 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
Page 4 of 5
Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 00:36:31 IST 2020
R/CR.MA/2452/2020 ORDER
applicants, 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.
12. At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not
be influenced by the prima facie observations made
by this Court in the present order.
13. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.)
Jani
Page 5 of 5
Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 00:36:31 IST 2020
