Abdul Hafiz Abdul Razak Shaikh vs State Of Gujarat

A.G.Uraizee, J

Mr. Apurva K. Jani, learned advocate submits that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the defacto complainant. Accordingly, he is permitted

to appear and to file his appearance on behalf of the defacto complainant.

RULE. Mr. Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent- State of Gujarat and Mr.

Apurva K. Jani, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the defacto complainant.

The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant for regular bail in connection with an FIR

being No. 11207028200347 of 2020 registered with Halol Police Station, District: Panchmahals for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(j) and

114 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4, 12 and 17 of the POCSO Act.

Heard Mr. Mahesh Prajapai, learned advocate for Mr. Nisarg Shah, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. Hardik Soni, learned APP for the

respondent-State and Mr. Apurva K.Jani, learned advocate for the original complainant.

Mr. Mahesh Prajapati, learned advocate for the applicant submits that the present application is before filing of the chargesheet. He submits that

the applicant is not named in the FIR which was lodged after delay of two days. He submits on the basis of the report dated 4.10.2020 submitted by

the Investigating Officer for adding section 376(2)(j) and 114 of IPC and sections 4 and 17 of POCSO Act that the applicant is implicated in the

offence on the basis of the statement of the victim that the applicant has extended financial assistance/support to the main accused person who is the

son of the present applicant. He submits that the applicant has not committed any rape on the victim. He, therefore, submits that considering the

nature of the allegations and evidence, the applicant may be enlarged on bail on appropriate terms and conditions.

Mr. Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed this bail application. He submits that but for

the financial assistance extended by the applicant, the main accused who is the son of the applicant would not have abducted and enticed the victim.

He submits that investigation is still going on and, therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail. However, he submits that if the Court is inclined

to release the applicant on bail, reasons may not be assigned on the merits of the case.

Mr. Apurva Jani, learned advocate for the original complainant submits that the applicant has a clout in the police department, hence, if released on

bail, the applicant is likely to influence the investigation. He submits that the applicant is giving threats to the complainant to settle the dispute. He

submits that the victim was traced by the police only after a habeas corpus petition was filed in the court. He submits that upon persuasion by the

Division Bench of this court, the victim has joined her parents. He, therefore, submits that the applicant may not be enlarged on bail.

I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do

not invite reasoned order.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, I am of the opinion that,

without expressing opinion on merits and arguments canvassed by the learned advocates on either side, this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and

enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Hence, the present application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection

with an FIR being No. 11207028200347 of 2020 registered with Halol Police Station, District: Panchmahals on executing a personal bond of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and subject to the conditions

that the applicant shall;

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;

[e] mark presence before the concerned Police Station on 1st day of each English calendar month between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. till chargesheet is

filed;

[f] shall not enter the revenue limits of Halol town except for marking presence and attending the court;

[f] furnish latest and permanent address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall

not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;

The Authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the

above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be

executed before the learned Lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any

of the above conditions, in accordance with law. At the trial, learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature, qua

the evidence at this stage, made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.

Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

Registry is directed to accept the appearance of Mr. Apurva Jani, for the defacto complainant.