Jahir Hasan Tailor vs State Of Gujarat

Ashutosh J. Shastri, J

1.0 Present application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking Anticipatory Bail as the applicant is apprehending arrest

in connection F.I.R. bearing C.R.No.11210012200621 of 2020 registered with Chowkbazaar Police Station, Surat city for the alleged offences

punishable under Sections 332, 504, 114 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Epidemic Act, 1897.

2.0 Heard, learned advocate for the applicant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.J.K.Shah.

3.0 Mr.Zubin Bharda, learned advocate for the applicant, has submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and has wrongly been arraigned in the

prosecution. In fact, no such offence is committed by the applicant and on the contrary, the incident which is occurred is the reflection of atrocious act

of the Police Sub Inspector. The manner in which the incident took place as narrated is the exaggeration of the version of police. In fact, the

complainant caught-hold the keys of motorbike on which the applicant was travelling and took it out even though the motor bike was in motion which

resulted into accused no.2 and the applicant falling down as accused No.2 lost his balance. Learned advocate has submitted that the applicant is

obedient citizen and as such, despite aforesaid act on the part of police officer, no overtact is done by him and in fact, as a law abiding citizen wanted

to lodge the complaint which was not registered and as such, had to approach this Court by way of SCR.A No.6431 of 2016 which came to be

disposed of vide order dated 6.9.2016. As a counter blast, the applicant has been falsely roped into the prosecution. Learned advocate has submitted

that the applicant had also filed a petition being CR.MA No.7953 of 2020 for seeking quashment of FIR which in part has been quashed by the court

insofar as it relates to offence under Sections 186 and 188 of the IPC is concerned. But since the applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection

with other offences of this very FIR which is dealt with by the Coordinate Bench of this court, has approached the court below by way of filing

anticipatory bail application being CR.MA No.3238 of 2020 before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Surat. The said application came to be

dismissed vide order dated 14.7.2020, the applicant has approached this Court by way of present application by raising multiple grounds in the petition

and a request is made that considering the law laid down by the Apex Court which is reported in 2011 (1) GLH 11, since the applicant is not likely to

misuse the liberty nor likely to flee away from justice and he being law abiding citizen, liberty be given since the custodial investigation is not warranted

in the present case. Learned advocate has submitted that the applicant is not having any criminal background of any nature and he being a law abiding

citizen, the request is made to grant the anticipatory bail.

4.0 As against this, Mr.J.K.Shah, learned APP, has submitted that the applicant is specifically named in the FIR, has played active role in commission

of crime and the Coordinate Bench has only quashed the FIR in connection with Section 186 and 188 of the IPC on account of technical flow.

Learned APP has submitted that the applicant is having scant regard for law and having criminal history, no discretion be exercised in favour of the

applicant. Byplacing the relevant report from the concerned police station and by placing certain statements which have been recorded, learned APP

has submitted that the applicant is involved in as many as 9 offences in past and is a head strong person and looking to his such kind of past history, a

request is made not to exercise the discretion at this stage. Learned APP has submitted that on the contrary, the panchnama as well as CD which has

been recorded has clearly revealed that the applicant is not all law abiding citizen. Hence, if at this initial stage, anticipatory bail is granted, there is a

serious likelihood of misuse of liberty and an attempt would be made to damage the process of investigation as well. The trial court has also thought it

fit not to exercise the discretion, considering the role which has been played by the present applicant and, a request is made to not to exercise the

discretion in favour of the applicant.

5.0 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having gone through the assertion which has been made in the FIR insofar as the

present applicant is concerned and looking to the reports as well as the statements recorded, there appears to be a case made out for refusal of

anticipatory bail. On the contrary, the report which has been submitted before the Court has clearly indicated that there are as many as

9 offences registered against the applicant and the manner in which the applicant has behaved with the police officers and which has been supported

by detailed reports prepared after recording the statements, this Court is not inclined to exercise the discretion under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

Hence, no case is made out by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail. Further, the investigation is at crucial stage as indicated by the learned APP

and as such, looking to this overall set of circumstance, more particularly the reports which have been placed on record, this Court is not inclined to

accept the request of the applicant and hence, the application deserves to be rejected.

6.0 As a result of this, the present application stands rejected. Rule is discharged.