Gujarat High Court
Sangita Ram Nayak vs State Of Gujarat on 25 June, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11463/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 11463
of 2024
==========================================================
SANGITA RAM NAYAK
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. RAAJEN D JADHAV(10026) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. KRINA CALLA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 25/06/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. 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 F I R be i ng C. R.
No . 11210060240183/2024 registered wit h Varachha Police
Station, Surat for the offe nce s puni sha bl e unde r S ec tions 420 and
120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Raajen D. Jadhav for the Applicant and
learned APP Ms. Krina Calla for the Respondent - State.
Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the
Respondent - State.
3. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the
Applicant is apprehending her 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/11463/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2024
undefined
Sessions Court came to be dis-allowed. He submitted that considering the
facts stated in the Application, the applicant may be granted anticipatory
bail.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of
the respondent - State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail inter alia
contending that the goods worth Rs.2,66,914/- had been purchased in the
name of the present Applicant and after the purchase of the said goods, no
payment of consideration has been made by the Applicant. Thus, there is
active involvement of the present Applicant in commission of the offence in
question. She therefore submitted that looking to the nature and gravity of the
offence, the present Application may be dismissed.
5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. The
present Applicant is a lady aged 29 Years who happens to be the daughter of the
main accused who is alleged to have purchased the goods worth Rs.24,62,227/-
in total from the first informant and, out of the same, goods worth Rs.2,66,914/-
had been purchased in the name of the present Applicant. Thus it appears that
the entire transaction had taken place between the first informant and the main
accused. Considering the said fact and having having heard the arguments
advanced by the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material
placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of
allegations, gravity of offence and the role attributed to the accused, I am
inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
6. 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/11463/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2024
undefined
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this
court is inclined to consider the case of the applicant.
7. 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.
7.1 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.
8. 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 F I R be i ng 1 1 2 1 0 0 6 0 2 4 0 1 8 3 / 2 0 2 4 registered wit h Varachha
Police Station, Surat for the offe nce s puni sha bl e unde r S ec tions 420
and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, on executing a personal bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on
the following conditions that the Applicant;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11463/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2024
undefined
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make available for
interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 2 9 . 0 6 . 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
9. At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not be influenced by the
prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is
permitted.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
J.N.W / 65
