Bhartiben Iswarbhai Chunara vs State Of Gujarat

Gita Gopi, J

Rule. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent-State.

This application has been preferred under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the first

information report being C.R. No.11191001200419/2020 registered with Anandnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under

sections 65(e), 81 of the Prohibition Act.

Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the the alleged premise does not belong to the present applicant. It is in the name of Prajapati

Gishaji Baluji. The applicant was not found on the said premises. He submits that the co- accused has falsely roped her into this matter stating that the

liquor was in the house of co-accused, who is a nephew.

Mr. Mansuri further stated that the said co-accused has been released on bail. There is no direct evidence of any conscious or indirect possession of

the illicit liquor by the present applicant. It is only on the statement of the co-accused that she has been named in the FIR. It was submitted that the

nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. It was, therefore, prayed that discretion may be granted

in favour of the applicant.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent â€" State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature

and gravity of the offence. It was submitted that the relation between the co-accused and the applicant is of aunt and nephew. It is, therefore, prayed

that no discretion may be exercised in favour of the applicant.

Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the material on record. The facts, as stated, the illicit liquor was not found from the

conscious possession of the present applicant and the premises also does not belong to her. Hence, taking into consideration the facts of the case,

nature of allegations and the gravity of offence, this Court is 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 Ors., reported at [2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution

Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, reported at (1980) 2 SCC 565.

In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with the first

information report being C.R. No.11191001200419/2020 registered with Anandnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad 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 herself available for interrogation whenever required;

(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 20.08.2020 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 her

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 her 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

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

decide it 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 right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if,

ultimately, granted, and the power 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 other conditions of this

anticipatory bail order.

At the trial, the concerned trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order. Rule is made

absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. Registry to communicate this order to the concerned Court/authority by Fax or Email

forthwith.