AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Umesh A. Trivedi, J
An interesting question is raised and argued by Mr.Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the applicants in this application to the effect that, whether any person who has been ordered to be released on an anticipatory bail, is to abide by the conditions imposed therein, only if he is arrested and subsequently, released on bail pursuant to that order.
The applicants are facing an F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-10/2013 registered with Maninagar Police Station filed at the instance of respondent No.2 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. On registration of the F.I.R., the applicants vide Criminal Misc. Application No.182 of 2013 approached the Court of learned Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad for an order of anticipatory bail in connection with the aforesaid offences. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court No.15, Ahmedabad City, vide order dated 7.2.2013 ordered to release the applicants on bail on terms and conditions mentioned therein in the event of their arrest.
Since the applicants failed to obey the terms and conditions mentioned by the court while granting an order under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the first informant vide Criminal Misc. Application NO.2729 of 2013, requested the Court for cancellation of an order passed by the Court on the ground of breach of terms and conditions being Condition Nos.1, 2 and 5 of the order dated 7.2.2013. The terms and conditions which were according to the original First Informant are:-
(1) Applicants till filing of the charge-sheet were directed to report to the police station on any date from 1st and 5th of every month.
(2) The applicants were directed to furnish detail address to the investigating officer as also to the Court during the pendency of the proceedings.
(3) If applicants were having passport, they were directed to produce it before the in-charge police officer of the concerned police station and if they do not have it, they were directed to file the affidavit to that effect.
The Court concerned after issuing the notice to the accused-applicants, permitted them to file reply vide Exh.14 to the application seeking cancellation of the order of anticipatory bail. After hearing the parties, vide order dated 18.1.2014 the learned Judge allowed the application preferred by the First Informant and quashed and set aside the order dated 7.2.2013, whereby the applicants were granted conditional order directing investigating officer to release them in the event of their arrest.
The applicants by way of present revision application have challenged that order before this Court.
Mr. Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the applicants submitted that pursuant to an order of anticipatory bail granted in their favour, applicants had remained present before the Police and their statements were also recorded. However, as asserted by him, the police authority informed them that they are not to be arrested in the offences and no charge-sheet is likely to be filed against them. Therefore, according to the submission of Mr. Dagli, learned advocate for the applicants, since they were not arrested and their bail bonds were not executed, the applicants are not supposed to follow the terms and conditions imposed whereby they were ordered to be released on anticipatory bail.
6.1. It is further submitted by him, as asserted in the present application vide paragraph 10 at page E of the memo of revision application, the applicant No.1 had made lot many calls to the writer as also the other police personnels. At the same time, it is asserted that statement of the applicants were also recorded more than once by the concerned police station. Again referring to page F, paragraph 14, it is contended that applicant Nos. 1 and 3 have visited the concerned police station and contacted over the mobile phone numbers provided in it to one Mohanbhai as also Jagdishbhai.
6.2. It is further contended that as asserted in paragraph 19 page H, the statement of applicants as also family members including one Mr. Jimmit Gandhi was also recorded. It is also asserted that statement of other office bearers of the applicants is also recorded. It is also asserted, relying on the assertion made in that paragraph that the report Exh.4 submitted by the police officer of Maninagar Police Station on 24.7.2013 submitted before the Court concerned while hearing cancellation pursuant to cancellation of bail application that the applicants are not found at residence or business place, is infact not a correct report. Based on such arguments and assertions, Mr. Dagli, learned advocate submitted that since pursuant to an order when they reported before the investigating officer they were not arrested and, therefore it is not incumbent upon them to comply with the terms and conditions as mentioned in the order granting anticipatory bail to them. According to his submission, since they are not arrested, the order passed by the Court granting them anticipatory bail does not come in existence unless the bail bonds are executed pursuant to an arrest, therefore, applicants are not supposed to follow the terms and conditions mentioned therein.
Mr.R.J.Goswami, learned advocate for respondent NO.2 -original First Informant as also Mr. Ronak Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor asserted that pursuant to an order granting anticipatory bail to the applicants, they have not reported to the police. Further the report dated 20.7.2013 vide Exh.4 submitted before the Court concerned disclosed that they have not reported to the police station. It is further mentioned in it that the police inspector concerned as also other staff of the police station had time and again visited the residential as well as business premises of the applicants but they were not found present there also. Not only that, according to their submissions they have not complied with any of the terms and conditions mentioned in the order dated 7.2.2013 whereby applicants were ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest. Therefore, they have submitted that the Court concerned has rightly quashed and set aside the order granting bail to the applicants dated 7. 2.2013 and therefore, they request to reject the revision application.
Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties, it is clear that there is inherent misconception in the mind of the applicants that unless and until applicants are arrested in connection with an offence and released on bail on executing the bail bonds, the terms and conditions mentioned in the order granting bail will not come into existence. The order directing investigating officer to release the applicants on bail in the event of their arrest is based on those conditions mentioned in the order. Even if, pursuant to that order, applicants are not arrested they are not absolved from obeying the conditions mentioned therein. Mr. Dagli, learned advocate has failed to show any provision of law or any case law on the said issue. The terms and conditions mentioned in the order while directing release of the applicants in the event of their arrest are to the effect of reporting to the police station every month till charge-sheet is filed, furnishing of their detail address of usual place of abode to the police station as also to the Court and surrender their passport if at all they have and if not to file an affidavit to that effect before the in-charge officer of the concerned police station. Once the applicants are armed with an order of anticipatory bail, that too, on terms and conditions, they are supposed to follow those terms and conditions like providing their address and surrendering their passport and reproting to the police station. The direction to the investigating officer to release them on bail in the event of their arrest will not come to the rescue of the applicants when they are not arrested. However, the applicants are obliged to follow those terms and conditions mentioned therein on which they were granted an order of anticipatory bail. Conditions are not to come in force only when applicants are arrested. Grant of order itself is based on those terms and conditions. Therefore, applicants are supposed to follow those terms and conditions even if there are arrested or not.
Merely because they have not been arrested and released on bail by execution of bail bonds, applicants cannot claim that the terms and conditions imposed upon them will not come into effect. Bail bonds are to be executed with a view to see that the applicants remained present before the police or the Court as and when they are required as bound by bond of surety. However, the applicants-accused can never say that terms and conditions imposed therein will not bind them unless and until they are arrested and released on bail pursuant thereto.
The assertion made by Mr.Dagli, learned advocate for the applicants that they remained present before the investigating officer is also incorrect. The said statement is without giving any particulars when they appeared before the investigating officer. Not only that, Exh.4, the police report submitted on 24.7.2013 in cancellation of bail application preferred by the first informant, which is dated 20.7.2013, it is asserted in it, they have not reported to the police station and they were not available at their house or place of business. Though nearly after three months of the said report, the applicants have filed reply Exh.14 objecting to the cancellation of bail application preferred by the first informant, there also they have not asserted that they had reported to the police station on a particular day or date. Not only that, in that reply applicants have not disputed the facts narrated in the report Exh.4 submitted by the police showing that they had not reported to them, thus, subsequent assertion, even if in the petition, subsequent to that report will not come to the rescue of the applicants even if it is correct. Since the date of passing of an order till today, applicants have not even attempted to comply with the terms and conditions imposed by the competent court granting anticipatory bail to the applicants. Therefore, their conduct also dis-entitles them from continuing the same relief when the said order granting anticipatory bail was already quashed and set aside by the order of competent Court.
Hence, I find no substance in any of the arguments advanced by learned advocate for the applicants and, therefore, this Criminal Revision Application preferred by the applicants, is hereby rejected. Notice discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier stands vacated.
Mr. Dagli, learned advocate for the applicants after passing of the order aforesaid, requested for staying this order further for a period of four weeks from today. However, the conduct of the applicants dis-entitles them for even extension of an order passed while entertaining the application at the initial stage. Hence, request being unreasonable, more particularly, when they have not even attempted to obey any part of the conditions imposed upon them, is rejected.