Gujarat High Court
Vijay Chinubhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 24 June, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11299/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 11299
of 2024
==========================================================
VIJAY CHINUBHAI PATEL & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2
MS. KRINA P. CALLA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 24/06/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor
waives service of notice for and on behalf of the
respondent State.
2. By way of the present application under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, the applicants-accused have prayed for
enlarging the applicants on anticipatory bail in
connection with the FIR be i ng C. R.
No . 1 1 1 9 1 0 0 1 2 4 0 1 2 4 of 2024 registered wit h
Anandnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad.
3. Heard learned Advocate for the applicants
and learned APP for the Respondent - State.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11299/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2024
undefined
4. Learned Advocate for the applicants has
submitted that the applicants are apprehending
arrest in connection the aforesaid FIR and in
this connection the earlier application filed by
the applicants before the learned Sessions Court
came to be dis-allowed. He submitted that
considering the facts stated in the
Application, the applicants may be granted
anticipatory bail.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the respondent - State
has opposed grant of anticipatory bail inter-
alia contending that the applicants herein had a
clear motive for commission of offence in
question as the applicants had lost Rs.6 Crores
by investing said amount in the stock market
through the first informant. She, therefore,
submits that the present applicants had played
an active role in commission of offence in
question as they were very much present at the
scene of occurrence by illegally confining the
first informant by assaulting him by deadly
weapon. She, therefore, submits that looking to
the nature and gravity of the offence present
Application may be dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11299/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2024
undefined
6. Heard learned Advocates for the parties
the arguments advanced by the learned advocates
for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
7. As per the case of the prosecution, the
present applicants along with the other co-
accused had abducted the first informant at the
instance of other co-accused who had lost Rs.6
Crore in the stock market. As per the case of the
prosecution, the role attributed to the present
applicants is to the effect that the present
applicants had illegally confined the first
informant by assaulting him with wooden logs and
plastic pipes. The co-accused namely, Rutvik
Patel, who has committed offence similar in
nature, has been considered for grant of bail by
the learned Sessions Court. Taking into
consideration the facts of the case, nature of
allegations, gravity of offence and the role
attributed to the accused, this Court is
inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the
applicants.
8. This Court has considered following
aspects,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11299/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2024
undefined
(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 applicants.
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11299/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2024
undefined
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 applicants are 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/-
(EACH) 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 2 8. 06 . 20 2 4 between
12.00 Noon and 2.00 p.m.;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11299/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2024
undefined
(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
11. At the trial, the concerned trial court
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11299/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2024
undefined
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)
NABILA
