SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rushabh Kishorbhai Talavat … vs State Of Gujarat on 12 March, 2019

R/CR.MA/3597/2019 ORDER




MR NITIN M AMIN(126) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JK SHAH APP(2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR CB RAVAL for Original Complainant


Date : 12/03/2019

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-
17/2019 registered with Shahibaug Police Station,
Ahmedabad for the offenses punishable under
Sections 498A, 354, 377 and 114 of the Indian
Penal Code.

2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Nitin Amin for the
applicant, learned APP Mr. J.K. Shah for the
respondent – State and learned advocate, Mr. C.B.
Raval for the Original Complainant, who has
instructions to appear on behalf of the original
complainant as stated in the order dated
26.02.2019 and who is permitted to file his

3. Learned advocate for the applicant as well as
learned advocate for the original complainant have

Page 1 of 4
R/CR.MA/3597/2019 ORDER

stated that the matter is settled out of the Court
and the application under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 would be filed by
the present application for quashing of the
present FIR on the said ground. It is also
submitted that application under Section 13B of
the Hindu Marriage Act will be filed before the
competent court. Learned advocate for the
applicant submits that the applicant will keep
himself available during the course of
investigation, trial also and will not flee from

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant
of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and
gravity of the offence.

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 offences, role
attributed to the accused, without discussing the
evidence in detail and also in view of the
settlement arrived at by the parties out of the
Court, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to
the applicant.

6. 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.

Page 2 of 4
R/CR.MA/3597/2019 ORDER

State of Punjab, reported at (1980) 2 SCC 665.

7. In the result, the present application is allowed.

The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in
the event of his arrest in connection with a FIR
being C.R. No. I-17/2019 registered with Shahibaug
Police Station, Ahmedabad 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 19.03.2019 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 Sessions 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;

Page 3 of 4
R/CR.MA/3597/2019 ORDER

8. Despite this order, it would be open for the
Investigating Agency to apply to the competent

Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant.
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.

9. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be
influenced by the prima facie observations made by
this Court in the present order.

10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted.


Page 4 of 4

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