IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 2162 of 2019
MAHESHBHAI MOHANBHAI BHAMBHI
STATE OF GUJARAT
A S TIMBALIA(7372) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2
MR.K.L.PANDYA, APP, (2) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 20/02/2019
1. This application is filed by the applicants under Section
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for regular bail in
connection with FIR registered as C.R. No.I-204 of 2018
with Morbi Taluka Police Station for the offence punishable
under Sections 306, 498A, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal
2. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants
submits that considering the nature of offence, the applicants
may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable
3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has opposed
grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the
4. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective
parties do not press for a further reasoned order.
Page 1 of 4
5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf
of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following
aspects are considered :-
I) The First Information Report is registered on
22.12.2018 for the offence which is alleged to have taken
place from 01.01.1998 to 21.12.2018.
I)The applicants are in custody since 26.12.2018.
III) The investigation qua the applicants is concluded as
the remand period is over.
IV) Submission of learned advocate for the applicants is
that the applicant No.1 is nephew and applicant No.2 is
sister-in-law (wife of elder brother-in-law).
V) Submission of learned advocate for the applicants is
that the allegations made in the FIR as well case papers
would not involve the applicants in any manner to
instigate the deceased to take such step.
VI) The Court has perused certain statements of the
witnesses including the neighbors which indicate the role
of the husband, however, nothing is coming out against
the present applicants.
VI)Learned Additional Public Prosecutor under the
instructions of the Investigating Officer is unable to bring
on record any special circumstances against the
Page 2 of 4
This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay
Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported
in  1 SCC 40.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the nature of the allegations made against the
applicants in the First Information Report, without discussing
the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion
that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the
applicants on regular bail.
7. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicants
are ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with
C.R. No.I-204 of 2018 with Morbi Taluka Police Station on
executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand Only) each with one surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that
(a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
(b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the
(c) surrender passport, if any, to the lower Court within a
(d) not to leave State of Gujarat without prior permission
of the Sessions Judge concerned;
(e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station on
alternate Monday of every English calendar month for a
period of six months between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;
Page 3 of 4
(f) furnish the present address of their residence to the
Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of
execution of the bond and shall not change the residence
without prior permission of this Court;
8. The authorities will release the applicants only if they are
not required in connection with any other offence for the time
being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed,
the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or
take appropriate action in the matter.
9. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having
jurisdiction to try the case. 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 applicants on
11. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
Page 4 of 4