Gujarat High Court
Kishin Ashokkumar Krishnani vs State Of Gujarat on 19 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10671/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 13/06/2025
Pronounced On : 19/06/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 10671
of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
KISHIN ASHOKKUMAR KRISHNANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KISHAN R CHAKWAWALA(9846) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MEET A SHAH(12392) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of
notice of rule for respondent - State of Gujarat and learned
advocate Mr. Sandip Patel waives service of notice of rule for and
on behalf of the original complainant.
2. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS"), the
applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10671/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
connection with the FIR being C.R. No.I-11191040251155 of 2025
registered with Sardarnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad for the
alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Bhargav Bhatt for learned advocate
Mr. Kishan Chakwawala appearing for the applicant submits that
the nature of allegations are such for which custodial
interrogation at this stage is not necessary. He further submits
that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of
investigation, trial also and will not flee from justice. He also
submits that the the present applicant is not directly or indirectly
connected with the commission of the crime, and only with a sole
intention to wreck vengeance against the applicant, he has been
falsely dragged into the present offence. Learned advocate Mr.
Bhatt submits that the present FIR is dated 06.05.2025 for the
offence alleged to have been taken place during the period
between 14.03.2025 and 06.05.2025, and as such, there is a
delay of almost three months in registering the FIR without there
being any satisfactory explanation worth the name about such
delay. The gist of the allegations against the applicant is that the
complainant purchased two shops from the applicant by way of
registered sale deed on payment of total sale consideration.
However, later, the complainant came to know that the property
purchased by the complainant was on a Government waste land,
and therefore, the complainant asked the applicant to reverse
the transaction and returned back the amount of total sale
consideration paid by him to the applicant, upon which, the
applicant threatened the complainant to be prepared to face the
consequences, and accordingly, at the instance of the applicant,
a person named Akash Amraiwadi, i.e, the accused No.1 called
the complainant on his mobile phone and demanded ransom of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10671/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
Rs.2,00,000/- and also gave life threats to the complainant and
his family, and under the fear of life, the complainant paid certain
amount to the accused No.1 through online mode. However, due
to constant demand of ransom and life threats given by the said
accused No.1, the complainant has left with no other option but
to register the present FIR. These are the sum and substance of
the allegations made in the FIR against the applicant, without any
concrete material or evidence to substantiate the said allegations
being placed on record. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt submits that
the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the present
offence without any nexus to the crime in question and that the
investigating officer in collusion with the original first informant
are apprehending the present applicant with some ulterior motive
and to pressurize and socially ridicule the present applicant. The
present applicant has been falsely implicated in the present
offence without there being any iota of evidence establishing any
nexus of the present applicant with the commission of the crime.
Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt further submits that the applicant
has not made any phone call to the complainant, and on the
contrary, the applicant has also received a threat call from the
said accused No.1-Akash demanding money from the applicant
also, and to substantiate the said argument, learned advocate
Mr. Bhatt has produced certain documents which shows that the
applicant has also paid some ransom amount to the said Akash.
He further submits that, in fact, on number of occasions, the
present applicant had also received threats calls from the
accused No.1-Akash, and therefore, the applicant also gave a
complaint in the form of an application to the concerned police
authority to register the complaint against him 02.05.2025, and
thus, it can be said that the present applicant has been made a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10671/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
scapegoat, and he himself is a victim in the hands of accused
No.1-Akash as the accused No.1-Akash has usurped money from
both the sides, and to substantiate his arguments, learned
advocate Mr. Bhatt has placed on record the transcription of the
conversation that had taken place between the present applicant
and the accused No.1-Akash. He, therefore, submits that by no
stretch of imagination, it can be said that the present applicant
is involved in the commission of the crime. Learned advocate Mr.
Bhatt has made a statement at bar that the present applicant is
still ready and willing to reverse the said transaction. Learned
advocate Mr. Bhatt further submits that even the applicant had
purchased the said land from the third party, and as soon as
proceedings under the provisions of Land Grabbing Act has been
instituted against him, the applicant had approached this Court
by way of filing quashing application, wherein after considering
the materials available on record, the applicant has been
protected by this Court.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt further submits that the
prosecuting agency has relied upon the exculpatory statement of
the co-accused recorded by the investigating officer during the
course of investigation, wherein he has given the name of the
present applicant, however, in support of the same, the
prosecution has not produced any corroborative evidence to
suggest that the present applicant is also involved in the
commission of the crime. Moreover, the prosecuting agency has
also heavily relied upon the past antecedents of the applicant.
They have come with a case that there are in all 11 offences
registered against the applicant in the past and that he is a
history-sheeter. However, it is to be noted that out of the 11
offences referred to by the prosecution, they are not able to get
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10671/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
the status of two cases despite sincere efforts being made, and
out of the remaining nine offences, two cases are still pending for
adjudication before the competent court, and in rest of the seven
offences, either the present applicant has been acquitted or the
proceedings have been quashed by the court concerned. Thus, it
can safely be said that the applicant has not been convicted in
any of the offences relied upon by the prosecution, and therefore,
as per the definition provided in the Bombay Habitual Offenders
Act, 1959, the applicant cannot be said to be habitual offender.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt has put reliance upon the
decision in the case of Ankit Mishra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
reported in 2025 (4) JT 627 and submits that at the time of
deciding the bail application, the role of the accused in the
commission of the offence is required to be seen and solely on
the basis of past antecedents, the bail application cannot be
rejected. Thus, in the case on hand, if the Hon'ble Court would
go through the order passed by the trial court, without touching
the merits of the matter, solely on the ground that there are past
antecedents against the applicant, his bail application has not
been entertained, and as such, in view of the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, the trial court
has committed an error in rejecting the bail application of the
applicant.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt has also put reliance upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P Krishna Mohan
Reddy vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No.7532 of 2025, to submit that an exculpatory
statement of one accused, implicating another co-accused,
cannot be taken into consideration at the time of deciding the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10671/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
bail application either anticipatory or regular against such co-
accused, as there can be no credibility attached to an
exculpatory statement of an accused implicating another co-
accused.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt further submits that pursuant
to the application given by the applicant before the concerned
police station, he was called by the police, however, as the
applicant could not be able to remain present before the police,
those proceedings have been terminated in the absence of the
applicant. However, the applicant is still ready and willing to go
before the concerned police authority along with all the
incriminating materials available with him against the accused
No.1, however, during the interregnum, the present FIR has been
filed, and as such, he is seriously apprehending that if he would
appear before the concerned police authority for the purpose of
recording his statement, then there are all possible chances that
he would be arrested by the police authority, and therefore, the
present applicant is required to be released on anticipatory bail
so that he may go before the police authority and cooperate in
the investigation to unearth the real truth. It is further submitted
by learned advocate for the applicant that applicant is innocent
and has no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled
against the applicant are false. No prima facie case is made out
against the applicant. If the applicant is enlarged on anticipatory
bail, he will not misuse the liberty and cooperate with the
investigation. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest by the
police any time.
8. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned advocate
Mr. Bhatt prays that there being merit in his application, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10671/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
same be allowed and the applicant be enlarged on anticipatory
bail.
9. On the other hand, 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 submits that the specific role of the applicant is
clearly spelt out from the body of the complaint. He also submits
that the involvement of the present applicant is there in the
commission of the offence from the very inception. Learned APP
submits that dispute arose between the applicant and the first
informant with regard to the property which the first informant
had purchased from the applicant, however, later, upon coming
to know about the said property being Government waste land,
the first informant asked the applicant to reverse the transaction,
however, instead of reversing the transaction, the applicant give
a contract to kill the first informant to the accused No.1, which
the accused No.1 himself has admitted in his statement recorded
by the police, and acting upon the said contract, the accused
No.1 started giving life threats to the first informant on phone
and also demanded ransom amount, which the first informant
had also paid. He also submits that at the time of administering
threat to the complainant, the accused No.1, has time and again,
told the first informant to settle the dispute with the applicant.
Not only that, in his statement recorded by the police, the
accused No.1 has very categorically stated that he has
committed the said act at the instance of the present applicant.
Therefore, considering the above stated aspects, at this stage,
the Hon'le Court may not exercise discretion in favour of the
applicant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10671/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
10. The present application has also been opposed by learned
advocate Mr. Sandip Patel for learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas
appearing for the original complainant. He submits that almost all
the materials collected by the investigating officer have been
placed on record by the learned APP. Learned advocate Mr. Patel
further submits that the applicant herein is a head strong person
and number of offences were registered against him in the past,
and he is an habitual offender. Moreover the applicant knew the
accused No.1-Akash which is evident from his own application
dated 02.05.2025 wherein he has stated that he met with Akash
and he knows him. Even there are contradictory statements
given by the applicant before the trial court as well as before this
Court, wherein before the trial court he has stated that the
applicant has not given any amount to the accused No.1,
whereas here before this Court it has been contended that the
applicant has also paid the amount to the accused No.1.
Moreover, one person, namely, Ajay Ashokbhai Tamanchi had
also made allegations against the present applicant for facing
the contract killing threat, and in this regard, he also made a
representation to the Commissioner on 19.11.2024. Therefore,
considering the seriousness of the allegations made against the
applicant, the present application may not be entertained.
11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the record.
12. It is not in dispute that there was property deal between the
applicant and the complainant, for which, disputes have been
cropped up between both of them. However, upon perusal of the
materials placed on record and the arguments canvassed, this
Court is of the prima facie opinion that on the basis of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10671/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
material collected so far and placed on record, the investigation
may proceed further to unearth the real truth, however, for that,
the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary at
this stage, but he will cooperate in the investigation as stated at
bar by the learned advocate for the applicant. It is contended by
the learned advocate for the applicant that even the applicant
also stands on a same footing like the complainant as the
applicant has also been received threat calls from the accused
No.1 and the applicant has also been asked to pay the ransom.
Moreover, the applicant has sufficient material to substantiate his
claim, and he is ready to produce all those evidences before the
police. Not only that, as stated at bar by the learned advocate
for the applicant, the applicant is also ready to reverse the
transaction. Thus, in view of the aforesaid fact situation
emerging so far, this Court is of the opinion that discretion
should be exercised in favour of the applicant.
13. Moreover, it is not shown by the contesting advocates that
the offence in question will have impact on society at large. It is
not shown that the alleged act causes harm to the society. The
accusations arise out of dispute between the individuals. It is not
shown by the contesting advocates that the nature and gravity of
allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicant
for relief of anticipatory bail. Learned APP as well as learned
counsel for the original complainant have not raised concern that
any prejudice would be caused to free, fair and full investigation
in the event the applicant is granted anticipatory bail. No
material, facts, circumstances or concern been shown by the
contesting advocates that the accused may tamper with the
evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his
mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10671/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the
evidence.
14. Both the contesting advocates have pointed out the
criminal antecedents of the applicant. However, no material or
circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court with
regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witness in
previous criminal cases. Moreover, as pointed out by the learned
advocate for the applicant, out of 11 cases registered against the
applicant, they could not be able to find out the status of two
cases despite sincere efforts being made, and out of remaining
09 cases, two cases are still pending for adjudication, and in rest
of the cases, either the applicant has been acquitted or
proceedings have been quashed by the concerned court.
15. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446,
the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 30 has observed as under:-
"We may hasten to add that when we state that the
accused is a history-sheeter we may not be understood to
have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail.
But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard
being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has
been booked."
16. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and
another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an
accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.
17. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is
concerned, it is not the case of the contesting parties that the
applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the
investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10671/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
during the trial. The prosecution has also not placed any material
that the applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law.
If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot
be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history. Therefore,
this Court does not deem it proper to deny bail to the applicant
just on the ground that he had criminal antecedents.
18,. So far as the statement made by the co-accused is
concerned, I am in agreement with the decision relied upon by
the learned advocate for the applicant in P Krishna Mohan Reddy
(supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus;
"50. Even where the police statement of an accused person
under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C is neither an admission nor
a confession, i.e., it is exculpatory in nature and not
inculpatory, such statements can be looked into by the
courts only for the limited purpose of culling out the stance
of the accused person qua the allegations. An exculpatory
police statement of an accused person under Section 161 of
the Cr.P.C which at the same time implicates another co-
accused, cannot be relied upon, merely because such
statement is not hit by the safeguards and rigours that
apply in respect of inculpatory statements in the form of an
admissions or confessions under the Evidence Act. The
fundamental cannon of criminal jurisprudence is that a
statement of one accused person cannot be used against
another co-accused person. The limited exception to this
aforesaid general principle are inculpatory confessions,
where the accused person in his confessional statement not
only admits his own guilt but also implicates another co-
accused. The rationale behind this limited exception as
explained in Bhuboni Sahu (supra), is that an admission by
an accused person of his own guilt affords some sort of
credibility or sanction in support of the truth of his
confession against others as-well as himself. An exculpatory
statement is an affront to the aforesaid principle. Thus, an
exculpatory statement of an accused person under Section
161 of the Cr.P.C. can only be looked into for the limited
purpose of either culling out the stance of the accused
person qua the allegations or for contradicting the accused,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10671/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
if the accused chooses to be examined as a witness in
terms of Section 315 of the Cr.P.C. However, such
exculpatory statement insofar as it implicates another co-
accused person can in no manner be relied upon by the
courts as against such co-accused as such statements by
their nature cannot be tested by cross-examination if such
accused person declines to be a witness in the trial in terms
of Section 315 of the Cr.P.C., and because such exculpatory
statement has no credibility.
51.Such statements at best could be said to be helpful to
the investigating authorities for the purpose of ascertaining
that the investigation is proceeding in the right direction or
not, as ordinarily, once the investigation is over, these
statements are neither supplied to the accused along with
chargesheet nor placed on record.
52.Thus, Section 30 itself makes it clear that the whole
legal exercise by virtue of which this provision of law can be
made applicable, depends upon the proving of confession
before a court which makes it into an admissible one in
order to implicate the other accused provided the
confession given by such person is established with full
strength on the basis of other materials pertaining to the
attendant circumstances. It would necessarily mean that
mere confession alone will not be adequate or sufficient to
implicate other persons. It is incumbent that there are other
materials also which would render support or substantiate
the case of the confession. However, it is subject to the
standard of proving as contemplated by law. If this is the
position, the court should look into the statements alleged
to have been given by the co-accused and that too before a
police officer during the course of investigation with great
care and circumspection. The said statements are directly
hit by Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Particularly, the statement given by any one of the accused
persons and recorded by the police officer during the
course of investigation cannot be relied upon by the
prosecution, except subject to the limitations provided by
Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. The statement
given by an accused involving himself in the crime and also
implicating third person cannot be proved legally in the
court. It will be in direct conflict with Sections 25 and 26
respectively of the Evidence Act. If such evidence or
confession cannot be proved, then the occasion for utilizing
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10671/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
such statement against another person would not arise.
53.From the above exposition of law, the following
emerges: -
(i) A person who is accused of an offence or named in the
first information report, can be examined by the police and
his statement may be recorded under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C., as held in Nandini Satpathy (supra).
(ii) A statement of an accused under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C, would ordinarily be of two kinds, it may be
inculpatory in nature or may be exculpatory in nature.
(iii) An inculpatory statement again may be in the form of
an admission or a confession. If such statement admits
either a gravely incriminating fact or substantially all the
facts which constitute the offence, respectively, as held in
Pakala Narayana Swami (supra), then it amounts to
confession.
(iv) Where such police statement of an accused is
confessional statement, the rigour of Section(s) 25 and 26
respectively will apply with all its vigour. A confessional
statement of an accused will only be admissible if it is not
hit by Section(s) 24 or 25 respectively and is in tune with
the provisions of Section(s) 26, 28 and 29 of the Evidence
Act respectively. In other words, a police statement of an
accused which is in the form of a confession is per se
inadmissible and no reliance whatsoever can be placed on
such statements either at the stage of bail or during trial.
Since such confessional statements are rendered
inadmissible by virtue of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the
provision of Section 30 would be of no avail, and no reliance
can be placed on such confessional statement of an
accused to implicate another co-accused.
(v) A confessional statement of one accused implicating
another co-accused may be taken into consideration by the
court against such co- accused in terms of Section 30 of the
Evidence Act, only at the stage of trial, where (1) the
confession itself was relevant and admissible in terms of
the Evidence Act; (2) was duly proved against the maker;
(3) such confessional statement incriminates the maker
along with the co-accused and; (4) both the accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10671/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
persons in question are in a joint trial for the same offence.
(vi) Furthermore, because such confessional statements are
not "evidence" in terms of Section 3 of the Evidence Act as
held in Bhuboni Sahu (supra), such a confession as held in
Kashmira Singh (supra) can only be pressed into
consideration by the court as a rule of prudence, to lend
assurance to the other evidence against such co-accused,
provided that aforesaid ingredients or conditions of Section
30 read with Section(s) 24 to 29 of the Evidence Act, are
fulfilled.
(vii) Where the police statement of an accused is in the
form of an admission, such inculpatory statement even if it
implicates another co-accused cannot be taken into
consideration against such co-accused in terms of
Section(s) 17 read with 21 of the Evidence Act, as doing so
would militate against the general principle, that an
admission may be given as evidence against the maker
alone. The exceptions to the aforesaid general principle
carved out under the Evidence Act, do not permit the usage
of such admission against a co-accused in any scenario
whatsoever.
(viii) Where the police statement of the accused is an
exculpatory statement i.e., it is neither a confession nor an
admission, the statement being one under Section 161,
would immediately attract the bar under Section 162 of the
Cr.PC., and the same may be used only for the very limited
purpose provided in the Proviso for the purpose of
contradiction or re- examination of such accused person
alone, as held in Mahabir Mandal (supra). Even if such
exculpatory statement of one accused, implicates another
co-accused, the same cannot be taken into consideration
against such co-accused, as there can be no credibility
attached to an exculpatory statement of an accused
implicating another co-accused, more particularly because
it is neither required to be given on oath, nor in the
presence of the co-accused, the same cannot be tested by
cross- examination and the exculpatory nature of such
statement militates against the foundational principle that
permits taking into consideration a statement of one
accused person against another co-accused as explained in
Bhuboni Sahu (supra), i.e., 'when a person admits guilt to
its fullest extent either to a certain incriminating fact or
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10671/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
substantially all the facts which constitute the offence, and
in doing so exposes himself and in the process other co-
accused persons to the pain and penalties provided for the
guilt, there exists a sincerity and semblance of sanction for
the truthfulness of such statement'. "
19. Moreover, considering the aforesaid aspects and the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
reported in (2011) 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court
reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the
case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. reported in
(1980) 2 SCC 665 and also the decision in the case of Sushila
Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1,
I am inclined to allow the present application.
20. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing
that in the event of arrest / appearance of the applicant in
connection with FIR being C.R. No.I-11191040251155 of 2025
registered with Sardarnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad, the
applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond
of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of
like amount on the following conditions that applicant:
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make
himself available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station
on 24.06.2025 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. and
the IO shall ensure that no unnecessary harassment
or inconvenience is caused to the applicants;
(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;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10671/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
(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 her/his residence till
the final disposal of the case till further orders;
(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the
Court and if having passport shall deposit the same
before the Trial Court within a week;
(g) an order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner
limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or
investigative agency, to investigate into the charges
against the person who seeks and is granted pre-
arrest bail;
(h) It is open to the police or the investigating agency to
move the learned trial Court for a direction under
Section 483(2) to arrest the accused, in the event of
violation of any term, such as absconding, non-
cooperating during investigation, evasion,
intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view
to influence outcome of the investigation or trial, etc.-
21. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the
prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the
applicant on bail.
22. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
service is permitted.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
VAHID
