SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sharmisthaba Pratapsinh Jetavat vs State Of Gujarat on 26 February, 2019

R/CR.MA/1939/2019 ORDER




MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR. RUSHANG D MEHTA(6989) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR JAYANT P BHATT(169) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR JEET J BHATT(6154) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
Respondent(s) No. 1

Date : 26/02/2019

1. Rule. Mr.K.P. Raval, Learned APP, 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
applicants­accused have prayed for anticipatory
bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.I-
234 of 2017 registered with Chandkheda Police
Station, District Ahmedabad, for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 294(b),
504, 114, 406, 341 and 120B of the Indian Penal
Code and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.

3. 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

Page 1 of 6
R/CR.MA/1939/2019 ORDER

the course of investigation, trial also and will
not flee from justice.

4. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that
this is a case of false implication. The
complainant is the daughter of retired Police
Officer and, therefore, they have misused the
Police machinery. Applicant Nos.1 and 2 are old­
aged mother­in­law and father­in­law. Applicant
No.3 is the sister­in­law. Learned advocate for
the applicants, therefore, urged that the
applicants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

5. Learned advocate for the applicants on
instructions states that the applicants are
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 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.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
on behalf of the respondent – State and learned
advocate Mr.Jeet Bhatt for the original
complainant have vehemently opposed this
application. They have pointed out the
allegations levelled against the applicants in
the FIR and contended that when serious

Page 2 of 6
R/CR.MA/1939/2019 ORDER

allegations are levelled against the applicants,
this Court may not exercise discretion in favour
of the present applicants. Learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, after referring to the
investigation papers, contended that the
witnesses have also supported the case of the
complainant and, therefore, this Court may not
exercise discretion in favour of the applicants.

7. Learned advocate Mr.Bhatt for the original
complainant has further submitted that non­
cognizable cases were also registered in the
years 2015 and 2016 wherein bail bond under
Sections 151 and 107 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, were obtained from the
applicants. Learned advocate has also referred
the averments made in the affidavit­in­reply
filed by the original complainant.

8. 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.

9. This Court has also considered the following

(i) the contention of the learned advocate for
the applicants is that the father of the
complainant is a retired Police Officer and he
has misused the Police machinery wherein

Page 3 of 6
R/CR.MA/1939/2019 ORDER

applicant Nos.1 and 2, who are aged 59 years and
61 years respectively, are falsely implicated;

(ii) applicant Nos.1 and 3 are lady accused; and

(iii) serious allegations were levelled
against the husband i.e. original accused No.1,
who was arrested and, thereafter, now released
on regular bail by the concerned Sessions Court;

10. 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.

11. In the result, the present application is
allowed. The applicants are ordered to be
released on bail in the event of their arrest in
connection with a FIR being C.R.No.I-234 of 2017
registered with Chandkheda Police Station,
District Ahmedabad, 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

Page 4 of 6
R/CR.MA/1939/2019 ORDER

Station on 05.03.2019 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 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
passports 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

12. Despite this order, it would be open for the
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

Page 5 of 6
R/CR.MA/1939/2019 ORDER

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.

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

14. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted.


Page 6 of 6

Leave a Reply

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

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


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