SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kedarsinh Sovansinh Rathod vs State Of Gujarat on 19 October, 2019

R/CR.A/1655/2019 ORDER

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1655 of 2019


MR LAXMANSINH M ZALA(5787) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
SWETA A DAVE(8247) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR BJ PRIYADARSHI(6016) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1


Date : 19/10/2019


1. Denial of bail for the offences punishable under Sections 498A,,
Section323, Section506(1), Section114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘SectionIPC’) and Section
5(2)(3)a, 3(1)R of the Scheduled Castes and SectionScheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in connection with the FIR
registered at C.R. No.I­ 167 of 2019 with Chandkheda Police Station; by
an order dated 09.08.2019 passed in CR.MA No. 1050 of 2019 by the
learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar has given rise to
this appeal under Section 14­A(2) of the SC SectionST Act.

2. On consideration of the rival submissions, it would appear that
the averments in the FIR that the accused are not the members of
Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe are missing. In case of SectionGorige
Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2008) 12 SCC 531], such
averments in the FIR are mandatory in absence of which the FIR itself
was quashed. Thus even under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and
SectionScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the appellants

Page 1 of 4

Downloaded on : Sun Oct 20 03:38:29 IST 2019
R/CR.A/1655/2019 ORDER

ought to have been considered for the bail.

3. This court further finds on perusal of the FIR that the averments
are general and vague and are not of the degree defined under Section
498A of the IPC. It is also not made clear in the FIR as to how the case
would fall under Section 506(1) of IPC. The other provision i.e. Section
323 is bailable offence and thus in the opinion of this court the case for
bail in anticipation of the arrest is made out.

4. Having regard to the nature of accusation against the appellants
and in the above referred facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is inclined to admit the appellants to anticipatory bail.

5. Unfortunately the trial court was unable to appreciate the said
factual aspect and fell in error in denying the bail to the appellants. The
impugned order therefore cannot be sustained. The same is required to
be quashed and set aside and the appellant is required to be admitted
to bail.

6. In the result, this application is allowed. It is directed that in the
event of arrest of the appellants herein in connection with FIR registered
at C.R. No.I­ 167 of 2019 with Chandkheda Police Station the
appellants shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond
of Rs.10,000/­ (Rupees ten thousands only) each with one surety each
of the like amount on the following conditions that they shall:

(a) cooperate with the investigation and make themselves
available for interrogation whenever required;

(b) remain present at the concerned Police Station on
25/10/2019 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

Page 2 of 4

Downloaded on : Sun Oct 20 03:38:29 IST 2019

R/CR.A/1655/2019 ORDER

(c) 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/them from disclosing such facts to
the court or to any police officer;

(d) 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) 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) 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 the same on merits;

7. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency
to apply to the competent Magistrate, for Police remand of the
appellants. The appellants 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 applicants, even if, remanded

Page 3 of 4

Downloaded on : Sun Oct 20 03:38:29 IST 2019
R/CR.A/1655/2019 ORDER

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.

8. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima­
facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the appellants on
bail. Rule is made is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.


Page 4 of 4

Downloaded on : Sun Oct 20 03:38:29 IST 2019

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