SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mayurbhai Chanabhai Rupareliya vs State Of Gujarat on 10 October, 2018

R/CR.MA/18596/2018 ORDER




MR CHETAN B RAVAL(2090) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MS MD MEHTA, LD.APP(2) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1


Date : 10/10/2018


1. Mr.Vishal Mehta, learned advocate states that
Mr.K.R.Patel, learned advocate has instruction to appear on
behalf of the prosecutrix.

2. By way of the present application under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant –
original accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory
bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR being
C.R.No.I- 83 of 2018 registered with Gondal City Police
Station, Rajkot, for the offences punishable u/s.376(M), 366,
344, 120(B), 323, 506(2), 114, etc. of the IPC and Section
25(1)(A) of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the G.P.Act.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that
the nature of allegations are such for which custodial
interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the
applicant is available during the course of investigation and

Page 1 of 5
R/CR.MA/18596/2018 ORDER

will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant
may be granted anticipatory bail.

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 would 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.

It is the case of the applicant that he got married
with the prosecutrix and marriage was registered before the
competent authority. It is also the case of the applicant that
the girl remained in company with the applicant for more than
one month and also performed some religious ceremony with
the applicant. The applicant also produced photographs
showing entry of the girl as newly bride in the house.
Therefore, he would submit that no offence as alleged have
been committed by the applicant.

4. Mr.Vishal Mehta, learned advocate appearing for
the prosecutrix would submit that the prosecutrix was kept in
dark and was not aware that the applicant had earlier married
with another lady and took divorce. Therefore, this application
may be dismissed.

5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail
looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor has assisted the court by
producing papers of investigation carried out.

Page 2 of 5

R/CR.MA/18596/2018 ORDER

6. I have considered the allegations leveled against
the present applicant in the FIR and perused the papers of
investigation and considered the role played by the applicant.
Prima facie, it appears that the prosecutrix is aged about 24
years and entered into the marriage with the applicant, who is
aged about 27 years. Marriage was registered before the
competent authority. The girl remained in company with the
applicant for more than one month. Photographs of the girl
suggests that she entered into the house of the applicant as
newly bride, which is supported by the papers of

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perusing the record of the case and taking into
consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role
attributed to the accused and punishment prescribed for the
alleged offences, 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 the case of
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra
and Ors. reported in (2011)1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon’ble
Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional
Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Ors.,
reported in (1980)2 SCC 565.

8. Learned counsel for the parties do not press for
further reasoned order.

Page 3 of 5

R/CR.MA/18596/2018 ORDER

9. In the result, the present application is allowed by
directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested
pursuant to FIR being C.R.No.I-83 of 2018 registered with
Gondal City Police Station, Rajkot, the applicant shall be
released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousands only) with one surety of like amount,
on the following conditions:

(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make
himself available for interrogation whenever

(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police
Station on 13/10/2018 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

(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 or till further orders;

(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the
Court and, if having passports shall surrender the
same before the Trial Court within a week.

Page 4 of 5

R/CR.MA/18596/2018 ORDER

10. Despite this order, it would be open for the
Investigating Agency to file an application for police remand
of the applicant to the competent Magistrate, if he thinks it
just and proper and learned Magistrate would decide it on
merits. 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 completion of such
period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject
to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order.

11. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced
by the prima facie observations made by this Court while
enlarging the applicant on bail. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted.



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