Labhuben Devaji Thakor vs State Of Gujarat

Ashutosh J. Shastri, J

Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent â€" State.

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.11191008200772 of 2020 registered with Chandkheda Police Station, Ahmedabad for the alleged offences

punishable under Sections 65(A) (E), 81, 116(B) of the Prohibition Act.

2.0 Heard, learned advocate for the applicant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Ronak Raval.

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

the prosecution. It has further been submitted that in fact, no physical possession is found from the applicant and the applicant being a lady, the

discretion be exercised in favour of the applicant by imposing suitable conditions. It has been pointed out that another co-accused â€" Ranjanben is

found with the muddamal in question and the applicant was not having any conscious possession or not even present when the alleged incident took

place which has resulted into filing of FIR.

4.0 As against this, Mr.Ronak Raval, learned APP, has submitted that the applicant is specifically named in the FIR and is wanted for quite some time

and, therefore, no discretion be exercised in her favour. However, since the applicant being a lady accused, has left it to the discretion of the Court.

5.0 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having gone through overall material on record, prima facie, it appears from the

document attached to the application that when the raid was carried out, physical possession of muddamal is found from co-accused Ranjanben and

the present applicant appears to be not found in conscious possession and apart from that, the applicant is a lady accused and since the applicant has

shown readiness and willingess to abide by any of the conditions imposed by this Court, the Court is inclined to consider the request of the applicant.

6.0 This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of

Maharashtra & Ors. reported in [2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein, the Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of

Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. reported in [1980] 2 SCC 565.

7.0 Learned Counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.

8.0 In the result, this application is allowed. It is directed that, in the event, the applicant herein is arrested pursuant to F.I.R. bearing

C.R.No.11191008200772 of 2020 registered with Chandkheda Police Station, Ahmedabad, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond

of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of like amount on following conditions :-

[a] shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;

[b] shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 1st August, 2020 between 11.00 am to 2.00 pm;

[c] shall not hamper the investigation in any manner nor shall directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness so as to

dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer;

[d] shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change the residence

till the final disposal of the case or till further orders;

[e] will not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if is holding a Passport, shall surrender the same before the trial Court immediately.

[f] It would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand, if h considers it just and proper and the concerned Magistrate would

decide it on merits.

[g] despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant. 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.

9.0 Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

10.0 The Registry is directed to communicate this order by fax or e-mail to the trial court.