Wednesday, February 25, 2015

AB even in 306 & 498a (suicide) case

AB even in 306 & 498a (suicide death) case. Guj HC

 

* Sec 498A, 306 (abetment of suicide ) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

* ".....without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant…."

 

*****************************disclaimer**********************************

This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

******************************************************************

CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE

******************************************************************

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL ) NO. 3684 of 2015

 

****************************************************************

VALMIKI SANDHYABEN BABULAL....Applicant(s)

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s)

****************************************************************

 

Appearance:

MR.MRUDUL M BAROT, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1

MR KL PANDYA, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

http://evinayak.tumblr.com http://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

****************************************************************

 

         CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

 

                           Date : 23/02/2015

 

                            ORAL ORDER

 

Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Pandya, the learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

 

By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-original accused has prayed to release her on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in connection with the FIR registered at the Mehsana 'A' Division Police Station, District Mehsana, vide I-CR No.80 of 2014 of the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

 

The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant would submit that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions.

 

On the other hand, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed this application for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

 

I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, perused the investigation papers and have also taken into consideration the facts of the case, nature of the allegations, role attributed to the applicant-accused, and without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

 

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 Others, reported in [2011] 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Others, reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665.

 

The learned advocate for the applicant, on instructions, states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions, including impositions of conditions with regard to the powers of the Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent court for her remand. He would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of the applicant-accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. http://evinayak.tumblr.com http://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

 

In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest of the applicant herein in connection with the FIR registered at the Mehsana 'A' Division Police Station, District Mehsana, vide I-CR No.80 of 2014, the applicant shall be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety of the like amount on the following conditions that she shall:

 

    (a) cooperate with the investigation and make herself available for interrogation whenever required;

    (b) remain present at the concerned Police Station on 27.2.2015 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

    (c) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

    (d) 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) at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change her residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders;

    (f) not leave India without the permission of the Court, and if having passport, shall deposit the same before the trial Court within a week; and

    (g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it just and proper and the learned Magistrate would decide the same on merits;

 

Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate for police remand of the applicant. The applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand.

 

This is, however, without prejudice to the rights of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand if, ultimately, granted, and the powers of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law.

 

It is clarified that the applicant, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to the other conditions of this anticipatory bail order.

 

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. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.

 

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)

 

MOIN

 

 

 

PDF uploaded to http://1drv.ms/1wdiE5i

 

 


*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/  FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
  
  
regards
  
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist