SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Somtidevi Dholaram Godara … vs State Of Gujarat on 15 January, 2020

R/CR.MA/23126/2019 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 23126 of 2019

SOMTIDEVI DHOLARAM GODARA (BISNOI)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT

Appearance:
MS MEENA VYAS(3315) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR LB DABHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

Date : 15/01/2020

ORAL ORDER

1. 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 –
84 of 2019 registered with Vapi Town Police
Station, District Valsad for the offenses
punishable under Sections 306, 498A and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code.

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

3. Learned advocate for the applicants on
instructions states that the applicant is ready
and willing to abide by all the conditions
including imposition of conditions with regard to

Page 1 of 5

Downloaded on : Wed Jan 15 23:44:06 IST 2020
R/CR.MA/23126/2019 ORDER

powers of Investigating Agency to file an
application before the competent Court for their
remand. He further submit 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.

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

6. This Court has considered following aspects,

(a) applicants are brother­in­law and sister­in­
law of the deceased;

(b) marriage span of the deceased with the
original accused No.1 i.e. husband was more
than 5 years;

(c) it is submitted that applicants are residing
separately since long;

(d) it is further submitted that general
allegations are levelled against the
applicants.

Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of

Page 2 of 5

Downloaded on : Wed Jan 15 23:44:06 IST 2020
R/CR.MA/23126/2019 ORDER

the present case, I am inclined to consider the
case of the applicants.

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 565.

8. 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 – 84 of 2019 registered with
Vapi Town Police Station, District Valsad on their
executing 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
Station on 22.01.2020 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
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

Page 3 of 5

Downloaded on : Wed Jan 15 23:44:06 IST 2020
R/CR.MA/23126/2019 ORDER

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;

9. 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 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.

10. At the trial, the concerned 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.

Page 4 of 5

Downloaded on : Wed Jan 15 23:44:06 IST 2020
R/CR.MA/23126/2019 ORDER

Direct service is permitted.

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.)
Jani

Page 5 of 5

Downloaded on : Wed Jan 15 23:44:06 IST 2020

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