SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manjulaben Ravjibhai Talpada vs State Of Gujarat on 18 February, 2019

R/CR.MA/1552/2019 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 1552 of 2019

MANJULABEN RAVJIBHAI TALPADA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT

Appearance:
MR MOUSAM R YAGNIK(3689) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2,3
MS SHIVANI R YAGNIK(8818) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2,3
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the
RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 18/02/2019
ORAL ORDER

1. By way of the present application under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the
applicants­accused have prayed for anticipatory
bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.I-
97 of 2018 registered with Dakor Police Station,
District Kheda, for the offences punishable
under
Sections 306, 498A, 323 and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that
the nature of allegations are such for which
custodial interrogation at this stage is not
necessary. He further submits that the
applicants will keep themselves available during
the course of investigation, trial also and will
not flee from justice.

3. Learned advocate for the applicants on
instructions states that the applicants are
ready and willing to abide by all the conditions

Page 1 of 5
R/CR.MA/1552/2019 ORDER

including imposition of conditions with regard
to powers of Investigating Agency to file an
application before the competent Court for their
remand. He further submits that upon filing of
such application by the Investigating Agency,
the right of applicants accused to oppose such
application on merits may be kept open. Learned
advocate, therefore, submitted that considering
the above facts, the applicants may be granted
anticipatory bail.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed
this application and submitted that the
allegations are levelled against the applicants
in the FIR and, therefore, the applicants may
not be released on anticipatory bail. She has
also referred the statements of the sister of
the deceased, who has also supported the
version given by the complainant. She,
therefore, urged that this application may not
be entertained.

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
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 applicants.

6. This Court has also considered the following
aspects:

Page 2 of 5
R/CR.MA/1552/2019 ORDER

(i) applicant Nos.1 and 2 are lady accused;

(ii) against all the applicants, general

allegations are levelled that they were giving
mental torture to the deceased and they were
instigating accused No.1 i.e. the husband of the
deceased;

(iii) similar allegation was levelled against
one Meenaben Ranchhodbhai Talpada (Masi Sasu)
and as per the submission of the learned
advocate for the applicants, the said co­accused
is released on anticipatory bail by the Sessions
Court;

(iv) no specific allegation is levelled against
the present applicants; and

(v) accused No.1 i.e. husband of the deceased
is also arrested and he is in jail.

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 applicants are ordered to be
released on bail in the event of their arrest in

Page 3 of 5
R/CR.MA/1552/2019 ORDER

connection with a FIR being C.R.No.I-97 of 2018
registered with Dakor Police Station, District
Kheda, on their executing a personal bond of
Rs.10,000/­ (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with
one surety of like amount on the following
conditions:

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

(b) shall remain present at concerned Police
Station on 25.02.2019 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;

(e) shall at the time of execution of bond,
furnish the addresses to the investigating
officer and the court concerned and shall
not change their 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

Page 4 of 5
R/CR.MA/1552/2019 ORDER

Investigating Agency to apply to the competent
Magistrate, for police remand of the applicants.
The applicants 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 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.

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 5 of 5

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2019 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…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh