Ranveer Jograna @ Ranchod Bharwad vs State Of Gujarat

Dr. Ashokkumar C. Joshi, J

Heard learned Advocate Mr. Hemang S. Bharwad appearing with learned Advocate Kirtan H. Mistry for the Applicant and learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak for the Respondent - State of Gujarat through video conference.

Rule. Learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondent - State of Gujarat.

By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Applicant - Ranveer Jograna alias Ranchod Bharwad (Original Accused No.6) has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being I - C.R. No. 1 1 1 8 4 0 0 2 2 0 0 7 8 8 registered with Chhota Udepur Police Station for the offenses punishable under Sections 186, 323, 332, 341, 353, 379, 392, 143, 147, 149, 504 and 506

(2) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of the Gujarat Minerals Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage Rules 2017.

As per the complaint the complainant is working as the Mines Supervisor with the Mines and Minerals Department, State of Gujarat. That on the captioned date of incident his office had received an on-line report indicating that near Nikhjil Hospital, Fathepura, Chhota Udepur, some persons are illegally stocking and selling sand. That in order to pursue the said aspect, the complainant along with other personnel reached the said spot. It is further alleged that they saw one TATA Truck bearing Registration No. GH-20-V- 9029 bearing sand in the boot of the Truck. Thereafter upon inquiring from the Truck Driver whether he had a royalty pass or a delivery challan, the Driver denied having any such pass or permit for carrying the said bunch of sand. Thereafter the complainant made two of his guards sit in the Truck and followed the Truck in their private car. In their way they spotted a red coloured Car bearing Registration No. GJ-34-B-709 and three persons from the said Car stepped down and started hurling abuses at the complainant and other members of his unit. Thereafter the complainant started recording video from his mobile phone and another Car reached the spot and with five more persons they started unloading the said Truck carrying sand. When the guard sent to stop the said persons from unloading the sand, the persons started manhandling the guard and the complainant herein. It is further alleged that Mr. Kana Jograna snatched the phone of the complainant and destroyed the phone of the complainant and destroyed the same by smashing it on the road and suddenly someone hit the complainant from his back with wooden stick. Subsequently all the accused barring the applicant herein started to hurt the complainant by wooden sticks and hurled abuses as they even threatened him to life. It is further alleged that the complainant was thereafter shifted to Chhota Udepur Government Hospital for medication and that the applicant herein approached the complainant at the hospital and threatened him to settle the dispute otherwise one of the persons from the other side belong to SC / ST community will file a cross complaint against the complainant.

This court has heard the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties.

Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection the aforesaid FIR. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has vehemently urged that in the present case pursuant to the contents of the FIR, there is no role attributed to the present Applicant. Further, at the most one may say that the offence is under Section 506(1) IPC and therefore as per the landmark decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported at [2011] 1 SCC 694, anticipatory bail may be granted and pursuant to the investigation report also, there is only one offene registered upon the present Applicant. Further it is argued that the Applicant is young and is studying in the fourth semester of Law. It is therefore submitted that if the discretion is not exercised, his educational career would be ruined. Therefore when the custodial interrogation is not required, the Applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail and the present application may kindly be allowed. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation and trial also and will not flee from justice. Learned advocate for the applicant has further submitted 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 his remand. He 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. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak appearing on behalf of the Respondent - State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. She submitted that the investigation be continued. It is further submitted by the learned APP that there is a prima facie role attributed to the present Applicant. Further, the learned APP has read page 15 which is the part of the FIR and drawn the attention of the court towards few lines to the effect that the present Applicant along with other accused has threatened to file a case of atrocity and they were having the illegal stock of sand. Further, the Applicant is a member of unlawful assembly and therefore custodial interrogation is necessary. Learned APP has fairly submitted that in the Investigating Officer's report, there are three offenes, but the said offences are registered against the co-accused and not on the present Applicant.

Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Moreover as per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, there are mainly two factors which are required to be considered by this court i.e. prima facie case and necessity of the Applicant for custodial interrogation.

This Court has considered following aspects,

(a) As per catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court there are mainly two factors which are required to be considered by this court;

(i) Prima facie case

(ii) Requirement of accused for custodial interrogation.

(b) Pursuant to the contents of the FIR, prima facie it transpires that initially there is no role attributed to the Applicant. Not only that, lateron his name is disclosed along with others but simultaneously there is no specific allegation against the present Applicant.

(c) The Applicant is young and is the student of 4th semester of Law.

(d) Pursuant to the landmark decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre's case (supra) personal liberty is equally important compared to the social interest.

(e) Prima facie, merely joining with other co-accused even if we consider the role attributed to the present Applicant along with the co- accused in that case, prima facie there is no requirement of the present Applicant for custodial interrogation. Further as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre's case (supra) bail is a rule and jail is an exception.

(f) Further in case of serious offences like murder, rape and others the court may not exercise the discretion but here the offences which are registered especially qua the Applicant is not such serious and therefore custodial interrogation is not required. Still, if the Investigating Agency can pray for remand if needed.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this is a fit case to exercise the discretion vested under Section 438 of Cr.PC by imposing strict conditions and therefore this court is inclined to consider the case of the applicant.

This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported at [2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, reported at (1980) 2 SCC 565.

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 I - C.R. No. 1 1 1 8 4 0 0 2 2 0 0 7 8 8 registered with Chhota Udepur Police Station for the offenses punishable under Sections 186, 323, 332, 341, 353, 379, 392, 143, 147, 149, 504 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of the Gujarat Minerals Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage Rules 2017 on executing 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 available for interrogation whenever required;

(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 7 .9.2020 between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 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 his residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders;

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

(g) 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 the remand application without being influenced of the observations made by this Court;

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 concerned 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. Direct service is permitted by e-mail/ fax.