R/CR.MA/24293/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 24293 of 2018
PRAVEENKUMAR UDAYPRATAP SINGH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
Appearance:
ADITYA A CHOKSI(7835) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK APP(2) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 05/02/2019
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-
83/2018 registered with Songadh Police Station,
Tapi for the offenses punishable under Sections
498A, 323, 503, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code and under Sections 3, 5 and 7 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
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.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions
states that the applicant is ready and willing to
abide by all the conditions including imposition
Page 1 of 5
R/CR.MA/24293/2018 ORDER
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 and pointed out from the
investigation papers that the amount as stated in
the FIR is transferred in the bank account of the
applicant. She further contended that there is
specific allegation in the FIR about the torture
given by the applicant at Bengalore and,
therefore, this Court may not exercise the
discretion in favour of the applicant.
5. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties
and perusing the material placed on record
including investigation papers 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.
6. This Court has considered the following aspects,
(a) FIR is filed for the offence under Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code for the
alleged incident, which has occurred at
Bengalore;
Page 2 of 5
R/CR.MA/24293/2018 ORDER
(b) it is not in dispute that the complainant
had stayed for 12 days only at Bengalore;
(c) while granting anticipatory bail to the
uncleinlaw i.e. the coaccused, this
Court has observed in the order dated
24.12.2018 passed in Criminal Misc.
Application No.22364/2018 that “attention
is drawn to the allegations in the FIR
itself where it is coming out that the
expenditure of marriage, which took place
at Uttar Pradesh, was footed by the family
of the applicant and the incident of
settling the accounts thereafter”. Thus
from the said observation made by this
Court, the contention of learned advocate
for the applicant about the transfer of
the money in the account of the present
applicant or parent is supported by the
said observation.
Therefore in view of the above facts, the
custodial interrogation of the applicant is not
required.
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., 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 665.
8. In the result, the present application is allowed.
The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in
Page 3 of 5
R/CR.MA/24293/2018 ORDER
the event of his arrest in connection with a FIR
being C.R. No. I-83/2018 registered with Songadh
Police Station, Tapi 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 08.02.2019 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 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;
9. Despite this order, it would be open for the
Investigating Agency to apply to the competent
Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant.
Page 4 of 5
R/CR.MA/24293/2018 ORDER
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.
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.)
Gautam
Page 5 of 5
