Patel Mukeshbhai Atamaram vs State Of Gujarat

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Learned Advocate Mr. Tejas Satta on behalf of the applicants would submit that applicant no. 6 is arrested. In view of the statement of learned Advocate Mr. Satta that applicant no. 6 is arrested, the application has become infructuous qua applicant no.6.

As far as applicants no. 1 to 5 are concerned, this Court has heard learned Advocate Mr. Tejas Satta on behalf of the applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned Advocate Mr. J.M. Barot would submit that he has instruction to appear on behalf of the first informant and that he may be permitted to file his vakalatnama on behalf of the first informant. Permission is granted.

Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 applicants – original accused pray for being released on anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 11206044220545 of 2022 registered with Mehsana City A Division Police Station, District; Mehsana on 10.07.2022 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 114 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned Advocate would submit that the applicants are ready and willing to co-operate with the investigating officer and whereas learned Advocate would submit that no antecedents of being involved in any criminal activities against the present applicants, this Court may protect the present applicants by granting anticipatory bail.

Learned Advocate for the applicants on instructions states that the applicants are 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 his remand. He would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicants-accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open.

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.

Heard learned Advocate for the respective parties who have not submitted anything further.

Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having considered the documents on record, without discussing the evidence in detail, this Court has considered the following relevant aspects for deciding this application:

[1] That before filing of the FIR in question, the first informant had preferred the complaint before the learned Magistrate and whereas it appears that the learned Magistrate had called for a report from the concerned Police Station under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and whereas after a detailed hearing, vide an order dated 10.06.2022, learned Magistrate had been pleased to reject the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C.

[2] It also appears that the Police officer concerned, i.e. Police Sub Inspector, LCB, Mehsana, had tendered a detailed report to the learned Magistrate and whereas from the report it prima facie appears that the present first informant, was a beneficiary of the organization which is run by the present applicants more particularly the organization purchasing food articles from the restaurant of the present first informant and whereas at a later stage when the quality and quantity of the articles were not deemed appropriate by the applicants, the organization has stopped buying such articles from the present first informant and whereas it prima facie appears that it is on account of having an axe to grind against the present applicants, that the FIR came to be registered.

[3] It also prima facie appears that the present applicants, have no direct connection with the organization being run by the present applicants and as noted hereinabove it further appears that the present first informant was trying to settle his scores with the applicants.

[4] It also appears that the applicants are engaged in doing charitable business more particularly the organization in question providing free food to beggars and other needy people at the Mehsana Railway Station for years.

[5] It also appears that appropriate proceedings have also been initiated by the present applicants before the Charity Commissioner by the present applicants.

[6] It also appears that the some of the applicants are senior citizens and whereas there are no antecedents against any of the applicants of them being involved in criminal activities.

Having regard to the circumstances in question, 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 applicants herein being arrested pursuant to FIR No. 11206044220545 of 2022 registered with Mehsana City A Division Police Station, District; Mehsana the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)each with one surety of like amount, on the following conditions:

(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required;

(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 08.08.2022 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 them 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 his 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 applicants to the competent Magistrate, if he thinks it just and proper and learned Magistrate would decide it on merits. The applicants 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 applicants on bail. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.