Gujarat High Court
Nirajkumar Naresh Prasad vs State Of Gujarat on 13 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25714/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 25714
of 2024
==========================================================
NIRAJKUMAR NARESH PRASAD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS ASMITA PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 13/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the
applicant-accused has prayed for enlarging the applicant on
anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.
No.11994013240031 of 2024 registered with
Surendranagar Railway Police Station, Surendranagar
for the offences punishable under Sections 324 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.
2. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned
APP for the Respondent - State.
2.1 Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of
the Respondent State.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25714/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2025
undefined
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. 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 looking to the nature and gravity of the
offence. She has submitted that the deceased was working in
the Railway Department and the present applicant was his
higher officials. The deceased was subjected to physical and
mental torture by the present applicant and even a false
complaint was also registered against him by one the accused
persons and because of which the deceased had to face
departmental proceedings. The applicant herein was
demanding amount of Rs.5/- lakhs from the deceased for
being exonerated in the said inquiry. Learned APP has
therefore prayed that the present Application may be
dismissed.
5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the
record. From the record it appears that a departmental
inquiry was conducted against the deceased for misconduct,
wherein he was found guilty and thereafter, the order of
punishment was also passed against him on 8.10.2024. In the
entire proceedings of the departmental inquiry, there is no
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25714/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2025
undefined
allegation made by the deceased against the present applicant
having demanded any amount of illegal gratification.
However, in the suicide note, the deceased had made a
statement that the amount of Rs.5/- lakhs was demanded by
one of the accused persons. Considering the same, the
present Application deserves to be allowed.
6. 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.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25714/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2025
undefined
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 FIR being C.R.
No.11994013240031 of 2024 registered with
Surendranagar Railway Police Station, Surendranagar,
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
20.01.2025 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25714/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2025
undefined
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;
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)
ILA
