Gujarat High CourtAshish vs State on 29 March, 2010Author:H.B.AntaniBench:H.B.AntaniGujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/2666/2010	 3/ 5	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 2666 of 2010
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

ASHISH
PRAFULBHAI PATEL - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
SV RAJU, SENIOR ADVCOATE for SV RAJU ASSOCIATES
for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MS TK PATEL, APP for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 29/03/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER1.	This application
preferred underSection 438of the Code of Criminal Procedure is
preferred by the applicant who is apprehending his arrest in
connection with CR No. I 33 of 2010 registered at Kalol Taluka
Police Station for the offence punishable underSections 365,323,504,506(2)and114of the IPC andSection 135of the Bombay Police
Act.2.	Mr SV Raju, learned
Senior Advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is
falsely involved in the commission of offence as narrated in the FIR.
On bare perusal of the FIR, the allegations made therein are prima
facie false, frivolous and vexatious. Even there are no allegations
made in the FIR which would constitute the offence punishable underSections 365,323,504,506(2)and114of the IPC andSection 135of
the Bombay Police Act. Considering the role attributed to the
applicant which can be seen from the FIR, he deserves to be granted
anticipatory bail as prayed for in the application.3.	Ms TK Patel, learned
APP for the State, while opposing the bail application, submitted
that the applicant is involved in the commission of offence
punishable underSections 365,323,504,506(2)and114of the IPC
andSection 135of the Bombay Police Act. Considering the role
attributed to the applicant and the manner in which the offence is
committed by the applicant, no discretionary relief be granted to the
applicant and the application deserves to be rejected.4.	I have heard Mr SV
Raju, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant and Ms TK Patel,
learned APP for the State at length and in great detail. The
applicant is facing the charge for the offence punishable underSections 365,323,504,506(2)and114of the IPC andSection 135of
the Bombay Police Act. I have perused the FIR and the role which is
attributed to the applicant. On perusal of the FIR, it becomes clear
that the applicant was present at the seen of offence. However, when
the scuffle took place and the other accused who were armed with
wooden stick gave stick blow to the complainant, while the applicant
immediately left the place of incident. Thus, the applicant has prima
facie not participated in the commission of offence and no overt act
can be said to have committed by the applicant. In view of the
aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant in my
view deserves to be granted anticipatory bail as prayed for in the
application.5.	In the event of
arrest of the applicant in connection with CR No. I 33 of 2010
registered at Kalol Taluka Police Station for the offence punishable
underSections 365,323,504,506(2)and114of the IPC andSection
135of the Bombay Police Act, he shall be released on bail on
executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees ten thousand only] with one
surety of the like amount on the following conditions that he shall:[a]	co-operate with the
investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever
and wherever required.[b]	shall remain present
at the concerned Police Station on 1.4.2010 between 9.00 AM to 3.00
PM.[c]	shall not hamper the
investigation in any manner nor shall directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts
of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to any police officer;[d]	at the time of
execution of bond, furnish his residential address to the
investigating officer and the Court concerned and shall not change
the residence till the final disposal of the case or till further
orders;[e]	not leave India
without the permission of the Court and, if holding a passport, he
shall surrender the same before the Trial Court within a week;[f]	not obstruct or
hamper the police investigation and not play mischief with the
evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;6.	It would be open to
the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he
considers it proper and just; and the competent Court would decide it
on merits.7.	This order will hold
good, if the applicant is arrested at any time within 90 days from
today.  The order for release on bail will remain operative only for
a period of ten days from the date of his arrest.  Thereafter, it
will be open to the applicant to make a fresh application for being
enlarged on bail in usual course, which, when it comes up before the
competent Court, will be decided in accordance with law, having
regard to all the attending circumstances and the materials available
at the relevant time, without being influenced by the fact that
anticipatory bail was granted.8.	Rule is made absolute
to the aforesaid extent.	Direct Service is permitted.[H.B.ANTANI,
J.]

mrpandyaTop