Gujarat High Court
Jayantibhai Raijibhai Dabhi vs State Of Gujarat on 1 August, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14853/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/08/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 14853
of 2024
==========================================================
JAYANTIBHAI RAIJIBHAI DABHI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
DARSHIT R BRAHMBHATT(8011) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR K M ANTANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 01/08/2024
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 the Applicant on
anticipatory bail in connection with the F I R be ing C.R. No . 1 1 2 0 4 0 4 5 2 4 0 1
9 2 o f 2 0 2 4 registered with Nadiad Rural Police Station, Kheda for the offences
punishable under Sections 354A(2), 354D, 114, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, Section
135 of the G.P Act and Sections 11(1) and 12 of the POCSO Act.
2. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent -
State.
2.1 Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the Respondent State.
3. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant is
apprehending arrest in connection the aforesaid FIR and in this connection the earlier
application filed by the Applicant before the learned Sessions Court came to be dis-
allowed. He submitted that considering the facts stated in the Application, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14853/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/08/2024
undefined
applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State
has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.
He submitted that the applicant has other 4 antecedents. Moreover, having regard to
the nature of offence, the present application should be dismissed.
5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. From the record it
appears that during the the course of investigation the statement of the victim had
been recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. In the said statement, the victim has
narrated a completely different story from what is narrated by her in the FIR. She
completely disowns the story which had been narrated by her in the FIR. Having
regard to the same, the application deserves consideration.
6. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the parties and
perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the
case, nature of allegations, gravity of offence and the role attributed to the accused, I
am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
7. This Court has considered following aspects,
(a) as per catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court there are mainly two
factors which are required to be considered by this court;
(i) prima facie case
(ii) requirement of accused for custodial interrogation.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is
inclined to consider the case of the applicant.
8. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14853/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/08/2024
undefined
and Ors., reported at [2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated
the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh
Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, reported at (1980) 2 SCC 565. Further, this Court
has also taken into consideration the ratio laid down in the case of Sushila Aggarwal
and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. in Special Leave Petition No. 7281-
7282/2017 dated 29.01.2020.
8.1 This court has also considered the judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State
of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observe
that whenever there is punishment of 7 years, then the court would be liberal to
exercise the discretion. Further, by exercising the discretion under Section 438
Cr.P.C, the doors of remand by the Investigating Officer is open and therefore also
this court is inclined to exercise powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
9. In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be
released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with a F I R being
C.R. No . 1 1 2 0 4 0 4 5 2 4 0 1 9 2 o f 2 0 2 4 registered wit h Nadiad Rural Police
Station, Kheda for the offences punishable under Sections 354A(2), 354D, 114, 504
of the Indian Penal Code, Section 135 of the G.P Act and Sections 11(1) and 12 of the
POCSO Act on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions;
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make available for interrogation
whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 06.08.2024 between 12.00
Noon and 2.00 p.m.;
(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 from disclosing such
facts to the court or to any police officer;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14853/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/08/2024
undefined
(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and 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 the investigating
officer and the court concerned and shall not change residence till the final disposal of
the case till further orders;
(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the concerned trial court and if
having passport shall deposit the same before the concerned trial court within a week;
and
10. At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not be influenced by the prima facie
observations made by this Court in the present order.
11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
GIRISH
