AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pranav Trivedi, J
Rule. Mr.Jay Mehta, learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent State.
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 FIR being I-C.R.No. 11199001240357 of 2024 with Bharuch City ‘C’ Division Police Station, Bharuch for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 419, 170 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned advocate for the applicant submits that considering the nature of allegations, role attributed to the applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions. He further submits that there is complaint already registered under Section 138 of the NI Act against the complainant by the present applicant and this fact has been suppressed by the complainant from this Hon’ble Court.
4 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. However, he fairly concedes that the factum of suppression of complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act against the complainant could not be refuted by the Investigating Officer.
Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the papers.
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, and considering the fact that complaint under Negotiable Instrument Act is filed by the complainant and that has not been disclosed, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am 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 his arrest in connection with aforesaid FIR on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that the applicant:
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 03.06.2023 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 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
At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.
Rule is made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.