SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Anilbhai Ramanbhai Rawal vs State Of Gujarat on 13 February, 2019

R/CR.A/347/2019 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 347 of 2019

ANILBHAI RAMANBHAI RAWAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT

Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2
for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
MS CM SHAH, APP (2) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA
Date : 13/02/2019

ORAL ORDER

1. Admit. Learned A.P.P. waives service of notice of
admission for the respondent – State and learned advocate
Mr.Amit Chaudhary waives service of notice of admission for
respondent No.2 and places on record affidavit on behalf of
respondent no.2 – complainant before this Court, which is
ordered to be taken on record.

2. This criminal appeal is filed u/s 14A of the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989
(for short, the “Atrocity Act”) against the order dated
01.02.2019 passed by the learned 4th (Ad-hoc) Additional
Sessions Judge, Anand in Criminal Misc. Application No.143 of
2019 whereby, the learned Judge rejected regular bail
application preferred by the appellants u/s 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 to enlarge the appellants on regular
bail in connection with the FIR being registered vide C.R.No.I-
61 of 2018 with Umreth Police Station, Anand for the offences
punishable u/s 376, 498A, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code, section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act and
Section 3(1)(R)(S) and 3(2)(5-A) of the Atrocity Act.

Page 1 of 3

R/CR.A/347/2019 ORDER

3. Having considered the submissions made at bar and
considering the allegations made in the FIR, impugned
judgment and affidavit of the complainant i.e. respondent No.2
herein, present appeal deserves consideration.

4. So far as case under the provisions of Section 3 of the
Atrocity Act is concerned, necessary averment that the
appellants are not the member of Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe is lacking from the FIR and in similar
circumstances, in Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
and others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531, the FIR itself was
quashed. Even otherwise, the appellants ought to have been
considered for bail. Therefore, non-consideration has resulted
into miscarriage of justice. The impugned order, therefore,
cannot be sustained and the same is quashed and set aside
and the appellants are ordered to be admitted to bail.

5. In the result, present criminal appeal is allowed and the
impugned order dated 01.02.2019 passed by the learned 4 th
(Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Anand in Criminal Misc.
Application No.143 of 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside.
The appellants are ordered to be enlarged on bail on each
furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with surety of like amount on
the following condition that the appellants 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] not leave the territory of India without prior
permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;
[d] appear before the Investigation Officer concerned, as

Page 2 of 3
R/CR.A/347/2019 ORDER

and when required for investigation purpose and attend
the Court concerned regularly.

[e] 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 not change
the residence without prior permission of Sessions Court
concerned;

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

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

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

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

10. 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 appellants on
bail.

11. The criminal appeal is accordingly allowed. Direct service is
permitted.

(S.H.VORA, J)
satish

Page 3 of 3

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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