Gujarat High Court
Vijaysinh Karansinh Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat on 8 February, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2699/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 2699 of 2023
==========================================================
VIJAYSINH KARANSINH CHAUHAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CHIRAG AYDI FOR MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Appellant(s) No.
1
MR. DHAVAL G BAROT(6546) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HK PATEL, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
SANKET K PANDYA(9451) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 08/02/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. The present appeal is filed under Section 14A of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "Atrocities Act") read with Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant
accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the
event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R.
No.11209016230870 of 2023 with Himmatnagar A-Division
Police Station, Sabarkantha for the offences punishable u/s
506(2) of the IPC and u/s 3(2)(5-a) of the Atrocities Act.
2. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that
considering the nature of allegations, role attributed to the
appellant, the appellant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by
imposing suitable conditions.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as learned
advocate for the complainant appearing on behalf of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2699/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2024
undefined
respondent-State and respondent complainant respectively have
opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and
gravity of the offence. Upon such submissions, both the learned
advocates pray to dismiss the appeal.
4. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and
perused the papers.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the
facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the
accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage,
I am inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the appellant for
the following reasons : -
(1) It appears that appellant has not spoken any words
against caste of the complainant. Thus, relevant and
essential ingredients under the Atrocities Act are not
attracted on prima facie reading of the FIR.
(2) Offence under IPC are triable by learned JMFC where
maximum punishment of 7 years can be imposed.
(3) Learned advocate for the appellant submits that the
appellant is ready and willing to abide any conditions
which may be imposed by this Court.
6. In above consideration, the appellant has made out prima
facie case to get the anticipatory bail. This Court is conscious
that statutory bar is operating while granting anticipatory bail
under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. But looking to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2699/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2024
undefined
the above reasons along with prima facie case, nature and
gravity of the accusation and severity of the punishment as well
as absence of flight-risk character, behaviour, means and
position of the accused as well as non-likelihood of the offence
being repeated and taking assistance of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prithviraj Chauhan vs Union of
India, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727, this is a fit case to exercise
jurisdiction.
7. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011) 1
SCC 6941, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law
laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri
Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665
and also the decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State
(NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, I am inclined to allow
the present appeal.
8. In the result, the present appeal is allowed by directing
that in the event of appellant herein being arrested in connection
with the FIR being C.R.No.11209016230870 of 2023 registered
with Himmatnagar A-Division Police Station, Sabarkantha, the
appellant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond
of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of
like amount on the following conditions that he :
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make
himself available for interrogation whenever required;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2699/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/02/2024
undefined
(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station
on 01.03.2024 and 02.03.2024 between 11.00 a.m. and
2.00 p.m. and the IO shall ensure that no unnecessary
harassment or inconvenience is caused to the
appellant;
(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 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 it on merits.
9. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the
prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the
appellant on bail. It is needless to say, the observations made
hereinabove are only tentative in nature and the trial Court shall
not be influenced by the aforesaid observation.
Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
