AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nikhil S. Kariel, J
Heard learned Advocate Mr. M.M. Tirmizi for learned Advocate Mr. Meet G. Raval for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval on behalf of the respondent-State.
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 prays for being released on anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 11218010220172 of 2022 registered with Udhyognagar Police Station, Porbandar on 20.04.2022 for offences punishable under Sections 66(1)(B), 65(E), 116-B and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
Learned Advocate Mr. Tirmizi for the applicant would submit that the present applicant is falsely implicated in the alleged offence. Learned Advocate would submit that the applicant was not found in possession of the prohibited article and the applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. Learned Advocate would further submit that the applicant is a lady accused aged about 58 years, therefore the applicant may be released on anticipatory bail by this Court.
Learned Advocate Mr. Tirmizi 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 looking to the nature and gravity of the offence the applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail by this Court.
Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties, the following aspects are considered by this Court:
[1] That the secret information with regard to prohibited liquor being stored was as against Kanubhai Bhikhubhai Kodiyatar i.e. son of the present applicant .
[2] That while the prohibited material was recovered from the house of the first accused i.e. son of the applicant whereas the presence of the applicant was found at the place in question.
[3] That the place in question being the house where the applicant resided, her presence at the said spot was natural.
[4] There is no other material to show that the applicant was in any manner connected with the crime in question.
[5] That while there were antecedents against the main accused, there was nothing to show that the present applicant has ever engaged in the business in question.
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 herein being arrested pursuant to the FIR No. 11218010220172 of 2022 registered with Udhyognagar Police Station, Porbandar, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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 remain present at the concerned Police Station on 30.06.2022 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 her residence till the final disposal of the case or till further orders;
(f) 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.