R/CR.MA/1785/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 1785 of 2019
HARDAS VISHRAM GADHVI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the
RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
MR DARSHAN VARANDANI, ADVOCATE for the Orig. First Informant
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 08/02/2019
ORAL ORDER
1. 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.I-
106 of 2018 registered with Mankuva Police
Station, for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code.
2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that
the nature of allegations are such for which
custodial interrogation at this stage is not
necessary. He further submits that the applicant
will keep himself available during the course of
investigation, trial also and will not flee from
justice.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant on
instructions states that the applicant is ready
and willing to abide by all the conditions
Page 1 of 6
R/CR.MA/1785/2019 ORDER
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 applicant accused to oppose such
application on merits may be kept open. Learned
advocate, therefore, submitted that considering
the above facts, the applicant may be granted
anticipatory bail.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
on behalf of the respondent – State and learned
advocate Mr. Darshan Varandani appearing for the
original first informant have opposed this
application. It is contended that there are
statements of witnesses in respect of the
allegations levelled in the FIR. It is submitted
that though marriage span of the applicant and
the deceased is 29 years, since 201516 both
were residing together and, therefore, with a
view to see that the applicant is not required
to pay an amount of maintenance to the deceased,
settlement was made by the present applicant
with the deceased and, thereafter, physical and
mental torture was given by the applicant and
the coaccused, as a result of which, the sister
of the complainant has committed suicide. It is,
therefore, urged that this Court may not grant
anticipatory bail to the applicant.
5. Having heard the learned advocates for the
parties and perusing the material placed on
Page 2 of 6
R/CR.MA/1785/2019 ORDER
record and taking into consideration the facts
of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of
offence, role attributed to the accused, without
discussing the evidence in detail, at this
stage, this Court is inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the applicant.
6. This Court has also considered the following
aspects:
(i) the applicant is aged about 56 years and
serving in the S.T. Corporation as a Helper;
(ii) marriage of the applicant with the deceased
was solemnized before 29 years and immediately,
after six months of the marriage, they were
residing separately;
(iii) proceedings with regard to maintenance
was filed by deceased against the applicant.
However, the matter was settled between the
parties and since last more than two and a half
years, they were residing together;
(iv) present applicant has filed written
complaint to the Police Inspector, Mandvi Police
Station against the deceased February, 2018, a
copy of which is sent to the District
Superintendent of Police and in the said written
complaint, the present applicant has narrated
how the deceased was behaving with the applicant
and his father; and
(v) general allegations are levelled against
Page 3 of 6
R/CR.MA/1785/2019 ORDER
the applicant;
7. 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. as 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, as reported at
(1980) 2 SCC 665.
8. In the result, the present application is
allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released
on bail in the event of his arrest in connection
with a FIR being C.R.No.I-106 of 2018 registered
with Mankuva Police Station, on his executing a
personal bond of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten
Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on
the following conditions:
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and
make himself available for interrogation
whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at concerned Police
Station on 15.02.2019 between 11.00 a.m.
and 2.00 p.m.;
(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any
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;
Page 4 of 6
R/CR.MA/1785/2019 ORDER
(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 Court and if having
passport shall deposit the same before the
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;
9. Despite this order, it would be open for the
Investigating Agency to apply to the competent
Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant.
The applicant 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
applicant, even if, remanded to the police
custody, upon completion of such period of
police remand, shall be set free immediately,
Page 5 of 6
R/CR.MA/1785/2019 ORDER
subject to other conditions of this anticipatory
bail order.
10. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be
influenced by the prima facie observations made
by this Court in the present order.
11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)
piyush
Page 6 of 6
