Gujarat High Court
Shubham Ravindraji Jaju vs State Of Gujarat on 13 October, 2023
Bench: Hasmukh D. Suthar
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18422/2023 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO.
18422 of 2023
==========================================================
SHUBHAM RAVINDRAJI JAJU
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PARTHIVKUMAR P VYAS(11000) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR NISHITH P ACHARYA(9308) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 13/10/2023
ORAL ORDER
RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on
behalf of the respondent - State of Gujarat.
[1.0] Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP
for the respondent - State.
[2.0] By way of present application under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants accused have
prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their
arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11211056230370
of 2023 registered with Surendranagar 'B' Division Police
Station, District Surendranagar for the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and sections 3, 4 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18422/2023 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2023
undefined
[3.0] Learned advocate for the applicants at the outset submitted
that the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment upto
7 years and notice dated 09.10.2023 under Section 41-A of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is issued by the Investigating
Officer however, the applicants apprehend that they will be
arrested and the applicants are ready to appear before the
investigating Officer and join the investigation.
[4.0] Though time and again, the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as
this Court has observed that when an offence is punishable with
imprisonment upto 7 years, then it is mandatory on the part of
the police authority to scrupulously follow the directions issued
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Arnesh Kumar v. State
of Bihar reported in (2014)8 SCC 273; Satender Kumar Antil v.
Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2022)10
SCC 51 and Md. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand and
Another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 892 and prior to
making mechanical arrest of a person, police authority shall have
to follow the aforesaid provisions and dictum as well.
[5.0] In the instant case, as the applicants apprehend their arrest,
in that event, their right and liberty is jeopardized. It is needless
to say that in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra), sufficient care
has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Apex Hon'ble
Court has observed thus:-
"11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure
that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily
and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18422/2023 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2023
undefined
and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have
observed above, we give the following direction:
11.1 All the State Governments to instruct its
police officers not to automatically arrest when a case
under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to
satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under
the parameters laid down above flowing from Section
41, Cr.PC;
11.2 All police officers be provided with a check
list containing specified sub- clauses under Section
41(1)(b)(ii);
11.3 The police officer shall forward the check list
duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which
necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing
the accused before the Magistrate for further
detention;
11.4 The Magistrate while authorising detention
of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the
police officer in terms aforesaid and only after
recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise
detention;
11.5 The decision not to arrest an accused, be
forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from
the date of the institution of the case with a copy to
the Magistrate which may be extended by the
Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons
to be recorded in writing;
11.6 Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A
of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks
from the date of institution of the case, which may be
extended by the Superintendent of Police of the
District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
11.7 Failure to comply with the directions
aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers
concerned liable for departmental action, they shall
also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to
be instituted before High Court having territorial
jurisdiction.
11.8 Authorising detention without recording
reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18422/2023 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2023
undefined
concerned shall be liable for departmental action by
the appropriate High Court."
[6.0] In view of the above, in the event the applicants appear
before the police authority to join investigation, the police
authority is directed to follow the directions given by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the above cited decisions well as the mandate of
Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before
making mechanically arresting the applicants. Further, the
learned Magistrate concerned is also directed to verify the
reason and then pass appropriate order prior to authorizing the
detention of the applicants.
[7.0] With the above observations and direction, present
application is disposed of accordingly. Rule is hereby discharged.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
