Gujarat High Court
Rakeshbhai Ranchhodbhai Master ... vs State Of Gujarat on 26 June, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11639/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 11639
of 2024
==========================================================
RAKESHBHAI RANCHHODBHAI MASTER (MACHHI)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MANAN MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 26/06/2024
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 F I R be i ng
C. R. No . 1 1 8 2 3 0 1 7 2 3 0 4 0 5 o f 2 0 2 3 registered
wit h Rajpipla Police Station, District Narmada for
the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4(1), 4(2), 4(3)
and 5(e) of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act.
3. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and
learned APP for the Respondent - State.
4. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted
that the Applicant is apprehending arrest in connection
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11639/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2024
undefined
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 it
was on the notice of concerned person that the land in
question belonged 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. He, 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11639/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2024
undefined
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, 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.
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11639/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2024
undefined
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 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 1. 7. 2 02 4 between 12.00 Noon and 2.00 p.m.;
(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11639/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2024
undefined
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 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)
Manshi
