Gujarat High Court
Imran Kalubhai Pathan vs State Of Gujarat on 12 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24239/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE ANTICIPATORY
BAIL) NO. 24239 of 2024
==========================================================
IMRAN KALUBHAI PATHAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS POONAM M MAHETA(11265) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. BHARGAV V. PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 12/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant has prayed for enlarging the
Applicant on anticipatory bail in connection with the F I R be i ng C. R. No.
11210015240015 of 2024 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat City for
the offences punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506(2) and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Virat G. Popat for the Applicant, learned
APP Mr. Bhargav V. Pandya for the Respondent - State and learned Advocate
Ms. Poonam M. Maheta appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2- Original
Complainant.
3. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the
Respondent - State and learned Advocate Ms. Poonam M. Maheta waives
service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Original Complainant.
4. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24239/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2025
undefined
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. Per contra, learned APP has opposed the present application for grant of
regular bail contending that the Applicant has actively participated in
commission of the offence in question. The Applicant herein had procured
vehicles from the other co-accused and thereafter had sold those vehicles in
scrap and had thus pocketed the money. Learned APP has therefore submitted
that looking to the nature of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion
in favour of the applicant and the Application may be dismissed.
6. Learned Advocate Ms. Poonam M. Maheta appearing on behalf of the
Original Complainant has also opposed the Application contending that the
Applicant had procured the vehicles in question from the other co-accused and
thereafter had sold those vehicles in scrap. She therefore submitted to dismiss
the Application.
7. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. From
the record it appears that the Applicant is the brother of the other co-accused
namely Irshad. It is alleged atainst hte Applicant that the Applicant had
procured vehicles from the said co-accused Irshad which was already sold to
the first informant and thereafter the said vehicle had been sold by the
Applicant in scrap and had thus pocketed the money. The record also indicates
that a Notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. came to be issued by the
Investigation Officer and pursuant to the said Notice, after the order of this
Court dated 28.08.2024, the Applicant had remained present before the
Investigating Officer and the Investigation Officer has also recorded his
statement. The record also indicates that the investigation qua the other co-
accused is over and charge sheet has already been filed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24239/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2025
undefined
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
10.1 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.
11. In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24239/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2025
undefined
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. 11210015240015 of 2024 registered with
DCB Police Station, Surat City for the offences punishable under Sections
420, 504, 506(2) and 120B 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;
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make available for
interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 1 9 . 0 2 . 2 0 2 5
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
12. At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not be influenced by the
prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24239/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2025
undefined
13. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is
permitted.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
J.N.W / 38
