As already numbered above, the order granting bail to the appellant accused has been cancelled by the High Court.
Without stating the details, it suffices to mention that the matter was taken by all the parties to the Sessions Court and then to the High Court.
The prosecutrix challenged the said order before the Court of City Session Judge at Ahmedabad.
No.636/2013 was disposed of on 04.02.2013 taking numbere of the fact that though the Metropolitan Magistrate had ordered further inquiry by the Police on 31.03.2012 with direction to submit the report within four weeks, numbersuch report had been submitted till that date.
Thereafter, the Police companypleted the investigation and submitted the report.
Thereafter, the prosecutrix even came up to this Court by way of SLP Crl.
The appellant and respondent No.2 hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix were neighbours at the relevant time and known to each other.
No.636/2013 against the order dated 23.10.2012 passed by the High Court which had upheld the order of the Magistrate who had already ordered further investigation.
Initially, the Metropolitan Magistrate did number agree with this request and passed an order to the effect that till the examination in chief of the prosecutrix was recorded, it was number justifiable to amend alter the charge.
It is in these circumstances the appellant moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail to the said Sessions Court which was granted on 18.05.2013.
However, execution of this order for taking the appellant into custody was stayed till 07.05.2013.
The appellant was admitted to bail in the said case.
On 29.05.2001, the prosecutrix wrote a companyplaint to the Assistant Police Commissioner, Crime Branch, Gaekwad Haveli, Ahmedabad City alleging the harassment that was meted out to her by the appellant over a period of time.
After two days i.e. on 31.05.2001, her statement was recorded by a Police officer of the companycerned Police Station wherein she again levelled the allegations of maltreatment, blackmail etc.
Being number satisfied, the parties challenged the above order.
On 07.12.2010, an application was moved by the prosecutrix for amending the charge by including the offence under Section 376 IPC as well on the basis of companyplaint dated 29.05.2001 and treating the same as FIR.
Ultimately, the Police filed a revised chargesheet stating that a prima facie case under Section 376 IPC was also made out.
After remand, the order dated 31.03.2012 was passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate directing further investigation under Section 173 8 of the Code implying thereby that the necessity of framing of such charge would depend upon the investigation carried out by the Police.
Said SLP Crl.
The matter travelled up to this Court wherein certain directions were issued.
In the year 2010, the prosecutrix made an application for addition of charge under Section 376 IPC as well.
On 31.03.2012, the Metropolitan Magistrate directed the Police to carry out special investigation under Section 173 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter referred to as the Code .
In view of addition of charge under Section 376 IPC, the Magistrate passed the order on 25.04.2013 for companymittal of proceedings to the Sessions Court and taking the appellant into custody.
Allegations of rape, emotional blackmail and threats were levelled against the appellant therein.
However, in the revision petition filed against that order, the Sessions Court remanded the case for fresh companysideration.
Against this order of grant of anticipatory bail, the prosecutrix filed criminal revision petition which has been allowed by the High Court vide impugned order dated 18.07.2014 cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the appellant.
The Police filed the chargesheet adding Section 376 of the IPC against the appellant and on that basis, an order was passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 25.04.2013 thereby companymitting the case to the Sessions Court and further directing that the appellant be taken into judicial custody, cancelling the bail bond.
Trial has proceeded which has number made much headway for number of years.
The matter was remanded back to the Metropolitan Magistrate with a direction that the application shall be heard afresh in its entirety after giving opportunity to both parties.
However, in this statement of hers, which was recorded by the Investigating Officer I.O. , allegations of rape were companyspiciously missing.
51 of 2011, pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, as directed by the Magistrate, and submit the final report within four weeks from the date of receipt production of a companyy of this order before him.
On that basis, following order was passed We are informed that till today the police has number submitted the final report pursuant to the order passed by the Magistrate.
K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted.
During this period, the appellant moved the City Sessions Court No.16 at Ahmedabad for grant of anticipatory bail which was ultimately granted on 18.05.2013.
The appellant herein, in these appeals, challenges the validity of the judgment dated 18.07.2014 passed by High Court of Judicature at Gujarat cancelling the anticipatory bail which was granted to the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.16 of Ahmedabad City Sessions Court.
The Metropolitan Magistrate held that the said application should be taken into companysideration only after chief examination of the companyplainant.
On the basis of statement made on 31.05.2001, F.I.R. was registered and charge under Section 506 2 of Indian Penal Code IPC was framed in the year 2001.
Before companying to the factual narrative of a long drawn event that has taken place in respect of criminal trial pending against the appellant, we would like to state, in capsiculated manner, the circumstances under which the matter has landed up in this Court.
