Pramodbhai @ Pramukh Kalabhai Chunara vs State Of Gujarat

Sangeeta K. Vishen, J

Rule. Ms. Nisha Thakor, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent â€" State.

By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant â€" accused has prayed for

anticipatory bail in connection with First Information Report being C.R.No.11204025200620 of 2020 registered with Kheda Town Police Station,

District Kheda for the offences punishable under Sections 65(e), 67A, 98(2), 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

Heard Mr. Kartikumar G. Barot, learned advocate for the applicant and Ms. Nisha Thakor, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, through video

conference.

The learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which, custodial interrogation at this stage is not

necessary. It is further submitted that the applicant will make himself available as and when required by the investigating officer and will also make

himself available during the trial and will not flee from justice. It is submitted that the applicant was not found at the place of offence and that

passbook of the bank of the present applicant was found from the vehicle, namely, Brezza Car, in which the contraband liquor was found and only on

that basis, the applicant has been arraigned as accused.

It is further stated that the applicant will remain present before the investigating officer on 17.8.2020 and will provide the permanent address. The

learned advocate 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 the investigating agency to file an application before the competent court for remand. It is further submitted that

upon filing of such application by the investigating agency, the right of the applicant â€" accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept

open. It is therefore, submitted that considering the above facts the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent â€" State has opposed this application looking to the nature and gravity of

the offence.

Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perusing the material placed on the record as well as considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, so also the principles laid down by the Apex Court

in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in (2011) 1 SCC 69,4 without discussing the evidence in

detail at this stage, I am inclined to grant the anticipatory bail to the applicant. This court has considered the aspects, viz. (a) the applicant was not

present and only the passbook of State Bank of India of the applicant was found in the Brezza Car; (b) as submitted by the learned advocate for the

applicant, the Brezza Car does not belong to the applicant and the same is of the ownership of one Ms. Radhaben Chunara with whom the applicant

has no connection.

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 First

Information Report being C.R.No.11204025200620 of 2020 registered with Kheda Town Police Station, District Kheda, on his 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 shall;

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

(b) remain present at concerned Police Station on 17.8.2020 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

(c) 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) 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) at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and not change his residence till the final

disposal of the case till further orders;

(f) not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; and

(h) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would

decide it on merits.

Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicants. The

applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing on 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.

Needless to say that at the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.

Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the concerned police station through e- mail/fax,

forthwith.