SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Hina Narendra Savra vs State Of Gujarat on 16 April, 2019

R/CR.MA/7420/2019 ORDER




MR MH SHAIKH(3330) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
VALIMOHAMMED PATHAN(6383) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MITESH AMIN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1


Date : 16/04/2019


1. Rule. Learned Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of
Rule on behalf of respondent – State.

2. 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 – 08 of 2019 registered with JambuGhoda Police Station,
Dist:Panchmahal for the offenses punishable under Sections
498(A), 328, 406, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. 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
herself available during the course of investigation, trial also and

Page 1 of 5
R/CR.MA/7420/2019 ORDER

will not flee from justice.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions states that
the applicant is 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 her 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.

5. 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.

6. 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 applicant.

7. This Court has considered the following aspects:

7.1 It is contended by learned advocate for the applicant that
all applicant is not the relatives of the husband of the complainant
and, therefore, provisions under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code is not applicable so far as the applicant is concerned;

Page 2 of 5

R/CR.MA/7420/2019 ORDER

7.2 Co­accused Karansinh Jagjitsinh Sandhu is enlarged on
anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 11.04.2019 and the
copy of the said order is produced at page:46 of the compilation;

7.3 I have gone through the reasonings given by this Court in
para:6 of the said order; and the said observations are also
applicable to the present applicant;

7.4 in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
present case, I am inclined to consider the case of the applicant;

8. 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.

9. In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant
is ordered to be released on bail in the event of her arrest in
connection with a FIR being C.R. No. I – 08 of 2019 registered
with JambuGhoda Police Station, Dist:Panchmahal on 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 herself
available for interrogation whenever required;

(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on

Page 3 of 5
R/CR.MA/7420/2019 ORDER

25.04.2019 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;

(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the
address to the investigating officer and the court
concerned and shall not change her residence till the
final disposal of the case till further orders;

(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the
Sessions Court and if having passport shall deposit the
same before the Sessions 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;

10. 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

Page 4 of 5
R/CR.MA/7420/2019 ORDER

completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free
immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail

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

12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is


Page 5 of 5

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