Narmadaben W/O Babubhai Pandya vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 5259 Guj

         R/CR.MA/4693/2021                                       ORDER



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
     R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 4693 of 2021
======================================
          NARMADABEN W/O BABUBHAI PANDYA
                        Versus
                  STATE OF GUJARAT
======================================
Appearance:
MR VIVEK V BHAMARE(6710) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR VN BHAMARE(1122) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR. J.K. SHAH, APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
======================================
 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
                      Date : 26/04/2021
                        ORAL ORDER

1. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties through video conferencing.

2. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with an FIR being C.R.No.I­36 of 2017 registered with Visnagar Taluka Police Station, Dist. Mehsana for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The facts of the present case are that the deceased was married to accused No.1 before three years of the incident and the deceased used to dislike the husband of the applicant as they used to dominate the affairs of the house. It is submitted that thereafter she gave birth to a baby girl, and the accused used to taunt her for giving birth to a girl. Thus, the deceased was not taken back to home by the accused persons. Owing to such situation 25 days before the alleged incident the husband of the deceased went to the parental house of the deceased and requested her to come to her matrimonial home. However, on the date of the incident the deceased poured kerosene on herself and set her ablaze.

          R/CR.MA/4693/2021                                       ORDER



3.1    Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that upon

registration of the F.I.R., the applicants had preferred anticipatory bail before this court, which was withdrawn. It is submitted the applicants also preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.20432 of 2017 for quashing of the F.I.R., which was also withdrawn. It is submitted that since then the present applicants were staying at their usual place of residence and attending the court proceedings for the other co­accused, however, they were not arrested till 04.02.2021. It is submitted that the co­accused are convicted vide judgment and order dated 29.01.2020 passed in Sessions Case No.52 of 2017. It is submitted that other co­accused are already convicted and the investigating agency has taken all the statement and collected all the material and the present applicants are ready and willing to give full co­ operation to the investigating agency. Lastly, it is urged by the learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant may be released on bail.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent­State has opposed grant of regular bail on the grounds that considering the nature and gravity of the offence.

5. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for a further reasoned order.

6. Having perused the materials 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, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. This Court has considered following aspects;

(i) The role attributed to the accused;

(ii) The F.I.R. is registered on 02.05.2017 and the applicants are

R/CR.MA/4693/2021 ORDER

arrested on 04.02.2021;

(iii) The applicants are mother­in­law and sister­in­law of the dececased respectively;

(iv) The other co­accused are already convicted and the investigating agency has taken all the statement and collected all the material and present applicants are ready and willing to give full co­operation to the investigating agency

7. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40;

8. In the result, the present application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with an FIR being C.R.No.I­36 of 2017 registered with Visnagar Taluka Police Station, Dist. Mehsana, on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/­ (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and subject to the conditions that she 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 her passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

(d) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the concerned Trial Court;

(e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station on alternate every Monday for initial six months and thereafter, on alternate Monday of every English calendar month, for a period of six months, between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;

(f) furnish latest address of residence to the Investigating Officer and

R/CR.MA/4693/2021 ORDER

also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of the Trial Court;

9. The Authorities will release the applicant only if she is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the concerned Trial Court will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the Trial Court having jurisdiction to try the case.

10. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law. At the trial, learned 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. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

11. Registry is directed to intimate the concerned jail authority and the concerned Sessions Court about the present order by sending a copy of this order through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.

12. Learned advocate for the applicant is also permitted to send a copy of this order to the concerned jail authority and the concerned Sessions Court through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J.) AMAR RATHOD...