Jagdish @ Bhurio Ishwarbhai Tadpada vs State Of Gujarat

A.S. Supehia, J

RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecution waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties through video conferencing.

This application is filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for regular bail in connection with FIR

registered as C.R.No.11204039200544 of 2020 with Mahudha Police Station, District Kheda for the offences punishable under Sections 454, 457, 380,

201 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the allegations made against the applicant are vague and he has been falsely implicated in the

alleged offence. He has submitted that the applicant is behind the bars since 06.11.2020. He has submitted that the applicant is not even named in the

FIR and nothing incriminating was found from the possession of the present applicant, which could connect the applicant with the alleged offence. He

has further submitted that the Investigating Officer has demanded seven days remand and the Court has granted the remand of all the accused but

nothing was found from the applicant. He has further submitted that there is delay of two days in lodging the present FIR and no such explanation is

given by the complainant, and hence, the advocate appearing for the applicant urges to grant regular to the present applicant.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the

nature and gravity of the offence.

Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for a further reasoned order.

I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered :-

i) The applicant is in custody since 06.11.2020.

ii) That the applicant is not even named in the FIR;

iii) Nothing incriminating was found from the possession of the present applicant, which could connect the applicant with the alleged offence;

iv) The Investigating Officer has demanded seven days remand and the Court has granted the remand of all the accused but nothing is found from the

applicant

v) The investigation is not concluded and charge-sheet is not filled;

This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, [2012]

1 SCC 40.

Having regard to the above submissions and in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature and gravity of accusation made

against the applicant in the FIR, this Court is of the view that discretion is required to be exercised in favour of the applicant for grant of bail.

Moreover, the applicant assures that he will abide by the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Court and shall not commit any breach.

Further I do not intend to go into the merits of the matters and I am persuaded to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicant.

Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with C.R.No.11204039200544 of

2020 with Mahudha Police Station, District Kheda on executing personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with one surety of like amount to the

satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;

(a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

(b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution & shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and shall not to play mischief

with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

(c) surrender passport(s), if any, to the Trial Court within a week;

(d) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Trial Court concerned;

(e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in a month for a period of six months between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

(f) furnish the present address of his 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 Trial 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 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, the 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.

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

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.

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.