Kesarben Ranjitsinh Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned Advocate Mr. Chirag B. Upadhyay for the applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval on behalf of the respondent-State.

At the outset, learned Advocate Mr. Chirag B. Upadhyay does not press the present application insofar as the applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned. The present application qua the applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 stands disposed of as not pressed.

Rule. Learned APP Mr. Raval waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

By way of this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant No.1-Kesarben Ranjitsinh Chauhan prays for being released on anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 11188001220132 of 2022 registered with Ambaliyara Police Station, District Arvalli, on 18.06.2022 for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

Learned Advocate Mr. Chirag B. Upadhyay would submit that this Court may consider this application insofar as the applicant No.1 is concerned, more particularly considering the fact that the applicant No. 1 is a lady accused aged around 53 years and whereas while it is alleged that the applicant No.1 was having a sickle in her hand, the only injury attributed to her was of having injured the victim on his hand. Considering the same, learned Advocate Mr. Upadhyay would submit that this Court may release the applicant No.1 on anticipatory bail.

Learned Advocate Mr. Upadhyay for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for her remand. Learned Advocate would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant-accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open.

This application has been vehemently opposed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Raval appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, who would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant No.1 and considering the fact that the FIR alleges offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, this Court may not exercise discretion in favour of the applicant No.1 also. Learned APP would further submit that if this Court were inclined to consider the application, then this Court may impose stringent conditions upon the applicant No.1 so as to ensure that peace prevails in the village concerned.

Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties, the following relevant aspects are considered by this Court:

[1] The fact that the present applicant is a lady accused aged about 53 years.

[2] That while the applicant is stated to be carrying sickle in her hand, she had inflicted injury on the hand of the first informant-victim and whereas it appears that other serious injuries, more particular injuries upon the head of the first informant were attributed to other accused.

[3] That the applicant is not having any criminal antecedents.

In this view of the matter and considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011)1 SCC 694, this Court is inclined to consider this application.

In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant No.1 herein being arrested pursuant to the FIR No. 11188001220132 of 2022 registered with Ambaliyara Police Station, District Arvalli, the applicant No.1 shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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 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;

(c) 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;

(d) shall not enter into Village Limb, Taluka Bayad, District Arvalli, for a period of three months.

(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 or till further orders;

(f) shall also at the time of execution of the bond, furnish the address of residence outside Village Limb, where she would be residing during the three months, to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court concerned.

(g) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if having passports shall surrender the same before the Trial Court within a week.

Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to file an application for police remand of the applicant to the competent Magistrate, if he thinks it just and proper and learned Magistrate would decide it on merits. 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 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 to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted.