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

Purohit Chetanbhai Hariji vs State Of Gujarat
2024 Latest Caselaw 814 Guj

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 814 Guj
Judgement Date : 31 January, 2024

Gujarat High Court

Purohit Chetanbhai Hariji vs State Of Gujarat on 31 January, 2024

                                                                                      NEUTRAL CITATION




      R/CR.MA/1926/2024                                  ORDER DATED: 31/01/2024

                                                                                       undefined




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE ANTICIPATORY
             BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 1926 of 2024

==========================================================
                          PUROHIT CHETANBHAI HARIJI
                                   Versus
                             STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
ABHINANDAN N AHIR(9277) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR BHUNESH C RUPERA(3896) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. SOHAM M. JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY

                                Date : 31/01/2024

                                  ORAL ORDER

1. By way of the present s u c c e s s i v e 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 being C.R. No. 11195061230720/2023 registered wit h Dantivada Police Station, Banaskantha for the offe nse s puni sha bl e unde r S ec tions 65(A), 65(E), 116(B), 98(2), 99 and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

2. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent - State.

3. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/1926/2024 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2024

undefined

Sessions Court came to be dis-allowed.

5. 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 powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for the remand. It is further submitted that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

6. Learned A P P appearing on behalf of the respondent - State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail contending that the Applicant was very much involved in the commission of offence in question. He therefore submitted that looking to the nature of offence the Application may be dismissed.

7. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. Considering the fact that the other co-accused namely Mukansinh S/o Madhosinh Rajput has been considered for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court and the role attributed to him is similar to the role attributed to the present Applicant, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

8. 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.






                                                                                       NEUTRAL CITATION




      R/CR.MA/1926/2024                                  ORDER DATED: 31/01/2024

                                                                                       undefined




9. 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., 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.

9.1 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.

10. 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 being C.R. No. 11195061230720/2023 registered wit h Dantivada Police Station, Banaskantha for the offe nse s puni sha bl e unde r S ec tions 65(A), 65(E), 116(B), 98(2), 99 and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition 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 5 .2.2024




                                                                                           NEUTRAL CITATION




      R/CR.MA/1926/2024                                   ORDER DATED: 31/01/2024

                                                                                           undefined




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

(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 remand application without being influenced of the observations made by this Court;

11. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/1926/2024 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2024

undefined

to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order.

12. At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.

13. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

(M. R. MENGDEY,J) J.N.W / 19

 
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