SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sanjaybhai Kantibhai Barot vs State Of Gujarat on 17 February, 2020

R/CR.MA/3566/2020 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 3566 of 2020

SANJAYBHAI KANTIBHAI BAROT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT

Appearance:
MR MINESH D ERINPURIA(8512) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MITESH AMIN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 17/02/2020
ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr.Mitesh Amin
waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of
respondent­State.

2. 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 No.11216007200035 of
2020 registered with Gandhinagar Sector­21 Police
Station, District: Gandhinagar, for the offenses
punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code.

3. 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.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions
states that the applicant is ready and willing to

Page 1 of 5

Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 23:34:27 IST 2020
R/CR.MA/3566/2020 ORDER

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 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.

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

6. 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, at this stage, I am inclined
to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

7. This Court has considered following aspects,

(a) it is submitted by the learned advocate for
the applicant that marriage span of the
applicant with the deceased was of more than
nine years and no allegation of demand of
dowry is made against the applicant;

(b) I have perused the allegations levelled
against the applicant and the material placed
on record;

(c) two other co­accused have been enlarged on
anticipatory bail; and

Page 2 of 5

Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 23:34:27 IST 2020
R/CR.MA/3566/2020 ORDER

(d) Looking to the overall facts and
circumstances of the present case, this Court
is inclined to exercise discretion in favour
of the applicant.

8. 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 565.

9. 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 FIR No.11216007200035 of 2020 registered
with Gandhinagar Sector­21 Police Station,
District: Gandhinagar, 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 24.02.2020 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

Page 3 of 5

Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 23:34:27 IST 2020
R/CR.MA/3566/2020 ORDER

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 concerned trial court and if having
passport shall deposit the same before the
concerned 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;

10. 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.

Page 4 of 5

Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 23:34:27 IST 2020

R/CR.MA/3566/2020 ORDER

11. At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not
be influenced by the prima facie observations made
by this Court in the present order.

12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted.

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)
piyush

Page 5 of 5

Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 23:34:27 IST 2020

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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