Gujarat High CourtKantibhai Tersingbhai Bhabhor vs State Of Gujarat on 30 November, 2018Author:A.Y. KogjeBench:A.Y. KogjeR/CR.MA/20252/2018                                     ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

         R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 20252 of 2018

================================================================
                   KANTIBHAI TERSINGBHAI BHABHOR
                                Versus
                         STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
FOUZAN N SONIWALA(8442) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR B G PRAJAPATI(6748) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR JK SHAH, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the
RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
================================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

                            Date : 30/11/2018

                             ORAL ORDER1. This application is filed by the applicant underSection 439of the

     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for regular bail in connection

     with FIR registered as C.R. No.I-28/2017 with Kothamba

     Police Station, District Mahisagar for the offence punishable

     underSections 457,380and114of the Indian Penal Code.2. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits

     that considering the nature of offence, the applicant may be

     enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

     appearing for the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular

     bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.Page 1 of 4R/CR.MA/20252/2018                                    ORDER4. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do

   not press for a further reasoned order.5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the

   respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are

   considered :-I) The applicant is in custody since 27.03.2018;

   II) The investigation has concluded and the chargesheet is filed;

   III) The statement of learned Advocate for the applicant that there

   is no discovery or recovery from the applicant nor has the

   applicant been identified in the Test Identification Parade;

   IV) The submission of learned Advocate for the applicant that

   though a number of antecedents are shown against the applicant,

   there is no direct evidence connecting the applicant to the offence

   and even in the first offence of Balasinhor Police Station, where the

   applicant came to be arrested first at the point of time, he has not

   been identified and;V) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor under the instructions of

   the Investigating Officer is unable to bring on record any special

   circumstances against the applicant.This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the

   Hon'ble Apex Court in the case ofSanjay Chandra v. Central

   Bureau of Investigationreported in [2012] 1 SCC 40.Page 2 of 4R/CR.MA/20252/2018                                         ORDER6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the

   nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the First

   Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail,

   prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to

   exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.7. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered

   to be released on regular bail in connection with C.R. No.I-

   28/2017 with Kothamba Police Station, District Mahisagar

   on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/= (Rupees Ten

   Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to the

   satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he

   shall;(a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;(b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;(c) surrender passport, if any, to the lower Court within a week;(d) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the

   Sessions Judge concerned;(e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station on alternate

   Monday of every English calendar month for a period of six months

   between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;(f) furnish the present address of his residence to the Investigating

   Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond

   and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this

   Court;(g) Not to leave the limits of Dahod, (except for marking presence

   or attending the trial), till the conclusion of the trial.Page 3 of 4R/CR.MA/20252/2018                                 ORDER8. The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required

       in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach

       of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge

       concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action

       in the matter.9. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction

       to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete,

       modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with

       law.10.At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the

       observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage

       made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.11.The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.     Rule is made

       absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is permitted.Sd/-(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
CAROLINEPage 4 of 4