Aliahmed Mohammed Yusuf Shaikh vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 4022 Guj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 4022 Guj
Judgement Date : 17 May, 2023

Gujarat High Court

Aliahmed Mohammed Yusuf Shaikh vs State Of Gujarat on 17 May, 2023

Bench: J. C. Doshi

     R/CR.MA/8869/2023                                      ORDER DATED: 17/05/2023




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
        R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 8869 of 2023
========================================================
             ALIAHMED MOHAMMED YUSUF SHAIKH
                              Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT
========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
UMARFARUK M KHARADI(8155) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                                 Date : 17/05/2023

                                   ORAL ORDER

1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - accused has prayed

for enlarging him on anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR

being C .R. No.11196008220370 of 2022 registered with J.P. Road

Police Station, Vadodara City, for the offence punishable under

Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120 (B)of the Indian Penal

Code.

2. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri as

also learned advocate Mr. Umarfaruk Kharadi, waive service of notice

of rule for and on behalf of the respective respondents.

3. Heard learned advocate for the applicant, learned APP for the

respondent - State and learned advocate for the original

complainant.

R/CR.MA/8869/2023 ORDER DATED: 17/05/2023

4. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant would

submit that considering the nature of offence, the applicant may be

enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the respondent-State has strongly opposed this

application and granting anticipatory bail to the applicant looking to

the nature and gravity of the offence. Learned advocate for the

original complainant has also strongly opposed this application.

6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective

parties, perused the investigation papers and have also taken into

consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role

attributed to the applicant- accused. Without discussing the evidence

in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the

applicant. 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 Others, reported

at [2011] 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated

the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri

Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia and others, reported at (1980) 2 SCC 665.

7. Following aspects are also considered:-

(I) Investigation is practically over as charge-sheet is filed against two co-accused;

R/CR.MA/8869/2023 ORDER DATED: 17/05/2023

(II)Two other co-accused are enlarged on regular bail, one by the

Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application

No.1445 of 2023, whereas another has been enlarged on regular

bail by the learned Sessions Judge in order of Criminal Misc.

Application No.2242 of 2022;

(iii) The alleged offence is triable by the Court of Judicial

Magistrate First Class;

(iv) The alleged offence is attributed to the documents, which

are already in possession of the Investigating Officer;

(v) Upon instructions, learned advocate Mr. Dagli appearing for

the applicant, submits that applicant is ready and willing to

extend all cooperation with the further investigation of the

offence;

(vi) This Court has also taken into consideration the Constitution

Bench judgment in the case of Sushilla Aggrawal V/s State

(NCT of Delhi) reported in 2020 (0) AIJEL-SC65697;

(VII) Regular Civil Suit No.289 of 2021 is pending between the

complainant and the accused as also other parties, whereupon

the application below Exhibit -5 seeking interlocutory injunction

has been denied by the concerned Civil Court;

R/CR.MA/8869/2023 ORDER DATED: 17/05/2023

8. Learned Advocate for the applicant on instructions states that

the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions,

including imposition of conditions with regard to the powers of

Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent court

for his remand. He would further submit that upon filing of such

application by the Investigating Agency, the right of the applicant-

accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open.

9. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that

in the event of arrest of the applicant herein in connection with FIR

registered as C .R. No.11196008220370 of 2022 registered with

J.P. Road Police Station, Vadodara City, the applicant shall be

released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/-

(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount on the

following conditions that he :

(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;

(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 25 th May, 2023 and 26th May, 2023 between 10.00 AM and 02.00 PM;

(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/them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and shall 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

R/CR.MA/8869/2023 ORDER DATED: 17/05/2023

the investigating 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 Court and if having passport, shall deposit the same before the 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 the same on merits

10. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating

Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for Police remand of

the applicant. The applicant 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 applicant, even if,

remanded to the Police custody, upon completion of such period of