Gujarat High Court
Madinabibi D/O Aatish Kalu W/O Suleman ... vs State Of Gujarat on 13 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/506/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 506
of 2025
==========================================================
MADINABIBI D/O AATISH KALU W/O SULEMAN ITRA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. ALTAF Y CHARKHA(7271) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. UTKARSH SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 13/02/2025
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 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 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 0 7 0 0 2 2 4 0 5 5 6 of 2024 registered wit h
Godhara 'B' Division Police Station, District -
Panchmahal for the offence punishable under
Sections 5(1), 6(B), 8(2), 8(4) and 10 of Gujarat
Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2017 and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/506/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
Section 325 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and
Section 119 of Gujarat Police Act.
3. 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. Learned advocate for
the applicant has 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 looking
to the nature and gravity of the offence. He
submitted that when the police had raided the
premises, the applicant herein had tried to
escape from place of raid. Learned APP has
therefore prayed that the present Application may
be dismissed.
5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties
the arguments advanced by the learned advocates
for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/506/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
6. It is the case of prosecution that the
present applicant was in the business of sale of
beef along with the other co-accused and when the
police authority had raided the presmises wherein
the said activity was going on, the applicant
having seen the police had run away from the
place of incident. However, except the statement
of other co-accused, there is no other material
connecting the present applicant with the present
offence. Having regard to this aspect, the
present application deserves to be allowed.
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/506/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
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.
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 the aforesaid F.I.R. on
executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/506/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
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. 02 . 20 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/506/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
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
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.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
NABILA
