Gujarat High Court
Pankajbhai Dineshbhai Kevadiya vs State Of Gujarat on 20 November, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21021/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 21021
of 2024
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 21021 of 2024
==========================================================
PANKAJBHAI DINESHBHAI KEVADIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS BELA A PRAJAPATI(1946) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 20/11/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the
respondent-State.
2. By way of the present application under Section 482 of
the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhit, 2023, 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 2 1 0 0 2 3 2 4 1 2 1 2 of 2024 registered wit h
Khatodara Police Station, Surat.
3. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned
APP for the respondent - State.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21021/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/11/2024
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.
5. Learned APP has opposed the present application, inter
alia, contending that the present applicant is the owner of the
factory, wherein the incident alleged in the FIR had taken place.
After the incident, which had taken place on 19.07.2023, an
inquiry was ordered into the same, and thereafter, upon inquiry,
it was found that it was the negligence on the part of the present
applicant as an owner of the factory in maintaining the
machinery in proper form, the incident alleged in the FIR had
taken place. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present
application.
6. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the
material available on record. From the record, it appears that the
applicant is arraigned as an accused in the present offence simply
because he is the the owner of the factory in question where the
mishap had taken place. As per the case of prosecution, some
accident had occurred because of which the deceased had
received burn injuries and had succumbed to the same. As per
the case of prosecution, the present applicant being the owner of
the factory, had not maintained the machinery in its proper form
and had not taken care to see that no accident takes place. Even,
it is the case on the part of prosecution that the incident was an
accident and nothing else.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21021/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
7. 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.
8. 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.
8.1 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21021/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
Investigating Officer is open and therefore also this court is
inclined to exercise powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
9. 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 No . C. R.
No . 1 1 2 1 0 0 2 3 2 4 1 2 1 2 of 2024 registered wit h
Khatodara Police Station, Surat 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
2 7 . 1 1 . 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21021/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
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
10. At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not be
influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in
the present order.
11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
12. In view of the order passed in the main matter, connected
Civil Application No.1 of 2024 does not survive and stands
disposed of, accordingly.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
GIRISH
