Balvant Aka Balvirumedbhai Vasava vs State Of Gujarat

A.S. Supehia, J

RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent â€" State.

[1] Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties by video conferencing.

[2] By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for anticipatory

bail in connection with the F.I.R. being C.R.No.III-129 of 2018 registered with Rajpardi Police Station, Dist.Bharuch for the offences punishable

under Sections 65A, 65E, 81, 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2017.

[3] Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is facing the aforesaid F.I.R. since 2018 but he has not been arrested yet. He has

submitted that the trial in the case of other co-accused has already commenced. He has further submitted that the applicant is not even named in the

F.I.R. and his name is disclosed by the co-accused and hence, he may be released on anticipatory bail. It is also submitted that the nature of

allegations are such for which custodial interrogation of the applicant at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicant will keep

himself available during the course of investigation, as well as trial also and will not flee from justice.

[4] Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondentâ€" State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking

to the nature and gravity of the offence. He has submitted that initially the Investigating Officer has made efforts to arrest the applicant but he has

absconded since 2018 and thereafter, on various dates, the Investigating Officer had gone at his village but the applicant could not be arrested. On

perusal of the report of the Investigating Officer, the learned APP has submitted that from the report it transpires that no warrant under Section 70 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is yet issued.

[5] Having heard 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 offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant

anticipatory bail to the applicant.

[6] This Court has considered following aspects;

(a) The role attributed to the applicant;

(b) The applicant is aged about 55 years;

(c) The applicant is not arrested yet with respect to the present F.I.R., which is registered on 10.08.2018 and no warrant under Section 70 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is issued.

[7] This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (Nct of Delhi) , AIR

2020 SC 831.

[8] In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR

being C.R. No.III-129 of 2018 registered with Rajpardi Police Station, Dist. Bharuch on his executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten

Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that he :

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

(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 14.06.2020 between 11.00 a.m. 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 his 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; and

[9] Despite this order, it would be open for the investigating agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant, if he

considers it proper and just and the Magistrate would decide it on merits. The applicant shall remain present before the concerned Magistrate on the

first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the concerned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to

treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining the application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without

prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted, and the power of the concerned 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 other conditions of this anticipatory bail order.

[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] The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. RULE is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

[12] Registry is directed to intimate the concerned jail authority and the concerned Sessions Court about the present order by sending a copy of this

order through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.

[13] Learned advocate for the applicant is also permitted to send a copy of this order to the concerned jail authority and the concerned Sessions Court

through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.