Gujarat High Court
Manojbhai Bhikkhabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 24 June, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11368/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 11368
of 2024
==========================================================
MANOJBHAI BHIKKHABHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 24/06/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule
on behalf of 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 . 1 1 8 2 3 0 1 7 2 3 0 4 0 5 of
2023 registered wit h Rajpipla Police Station,
District Narmada.
3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Pratik Barot for the
Applicant and learned APP Mr. Chintan Dave for the
Respondent - State.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11368/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2024
undefined
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. He submitted
that considering the facts stated in the Application, the
applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the respondent - State has
submitted that to the notice to the of concerned
person that the land in question belonging to the
Trust and therefore, they should not purchase the
land in question. The concerned person has
purchased the land in question and constructed the
houses. She, therefore, submits that considering the
facts stated in the Application, the applicant may
be granted anticipatory bail.
6. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned
advocates for the parties and perusing the material
placed on record.
7. From the record it appears that the land in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11368/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2024
undefined
question had been purchased by the present applicant
in the year 2013 and necessary sale-deed has been
executed in his favour in the year 2013 itself and
thereafter, no action appears to have been taken by
the first informant for encroachment of land and the
F.I.R. came to be lodged only in the year 2023. Taking
into consideration the facts of the case, nature of
allegations, gravity of offence and the role attributed
to the accused and so also the age of the present
applicant i.e. 63 years, t h i s C o u r t i s 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.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of
the present case, this court is inclined to consider
the case of the applicant.
9. This Court has also taken into consideration
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11368/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2024
undefined
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11368/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2024
undefined
allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on
anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection
with the aforesaid F.I.R. 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 28.06. 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;
(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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11368/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2024
undefined
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
11. At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not
be influenced by the prima facie observations made
by this Court in the present order.
12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
J.N.W / 65
