Tuesday, 19, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Laxmanbhai Somabhai Sangada vs State Of Gujarat
2024 Latest Caselaw 7819 Guj

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 7819 Guj
Judgement Date : 2 August, 2024

Gujarat High Court

Laxmanbhai Somabhai Sangada vs State Of Gujarat on 2 August, 2024

                                                                                         NEUTRAL CITATION




     R/CR.MA/15013/2024                                     ORDER DATED: 02/08/2024

                                                                                          undefined




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 15013
                           of 2024
==========================================================
                          LAXMANBHAI SOMABHAI SANGADA
                                      Versus
                               STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
ABHISST K THAKER(7010) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR TRUPESH KATHERIYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
                  Date : 02/08/2024
                   ORAL ORDER

1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

2. 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 FIR be i ng C. R. No . 0 6 of 2016 registered wit h A.C.B.Police Station, Dahod.

3. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent - State.

4. 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.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail, inter alia, contending that the present

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/15013/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/08/2024

undefined

applicant was found to be possessing the assets, which were disproportionate to his non sources income. He, therefore, submitted that there is an active involvement of the present application in the offence in question. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application.

6. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the material available on record. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the present FIR had been lodged in the Year-2016, whereas the present applicant is sought to the arrested in the Year-2024. The record indicates that in the interregnum, the applicant was summoned on several occasions by the Investigating Officer and the applicant had remained present before the Investigating Officer as and when he was summoned by the Investigating Officer.

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 and Ors.,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/15013/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/08/2024

undefined

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 FIR be i ng No . C. R. No . 0 6 of 2016 registered wit h A.C.B.Police Station, Dahod 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;

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/15013/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/08/2024

undefined

(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 0 7 . 1 0 . 2 0 2 4 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;

(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

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter