SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Karansinh Jagjitsinh Sandhu vs State Of Gujarat on 11 April, 2019

R/CR.MA/6367/2019 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6367 of 2019

KARANSINH JAGJITSINH SANDHU
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT

Appearance:
VALIMOHAMMED PATHAN(6383) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JK SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

Date : 11/04/2019

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 – 8 of 2019
registered with Jambughoda Police Station,
District Panchmahal for the offenses
punishable under Sections 498A, 328, 406,
504, 506, 34 of IPC.

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.

Page 1 of 6
R/CR.MA/6367/2019 ORDER

3. 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 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
has opposed grant of anticipatory bail
looking to the nature and gravity of the
offence.

5. 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. This
Court has also taken into consideration the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in

Page 2 of 6
R/CR.MA/6367/2019 ORDER

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.

6. This Court has considered the following
aspects:

It is contended by learned advocate for the
applicant that prior to lodging of the FIR in
question, written complaint was given on
27.10.2018 to the Deputy Police Commissioner,
Crime Branch, New Mumbai, Women Cell, wherein
there is no allegation against the applicant
alleging for the offence punishable under
Section 328 of IPC. Thus, this is nothing but
an afterthought on the part of the
complainant.

It is further contended that in the written
complaint given by the complainant in
October, 2018, it is categorically stated by
the complainant that ornaments were given to
her mother­in­law for keeping the same in the
locker in September, 2018. However, after
taking instruction, learned advocate for the
applicant has submitted that the said locker
is not operated after 31.08.2018.

Page 3 of 6
R/CR.MA/6367/2019 ORDER

I have also considered the allegations

levelled against the applicant.
In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the present case, I am
inclined to exercise the discretion in his
favour.

7. 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 – 8
of 2019 registered with Jambughoda Police
Station, District Panchmahal 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 18.04.2019 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;

Page 4 of 6

R/CR.MA/6367/2019 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;

8. 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

Page 5 of 6
R/CR.MA/6367/2019 ORDER

the applicant, 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.

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

10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. Direct service is permitted.

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)
Jani

Page 6 of 6

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

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