Revlabhai Virsingbhai Sangada vs State Of Gujarat

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned Advocate Mr.Mukund Thakkar appearing for learned Advocate Mr.P.P. Majmudar on behalf of the applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Ronak Raval 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.11821014220089 of 2022 registered with Dhanpur Police Station, District Dahod on 23.2.2022 for offences punishable under Sections 5(1), 6A(1), 8(2), 8(4), 10 of the Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2017.

Learned Advocate Mr.Mukund Thakkar for the applicants would submit that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation of the applicants at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicants are available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. Learned Advocate would submit that the applicants are not named in the FIR and only on the basis of a statement of a co-accused, they are implicated in the present. Learned Advocate Mr.Thakkar would, therefore, request that in view of the above, the applicants may be granted 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. Learned Advocate 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.

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 applicants may not be released on anticipatory bail by this Court.

Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the investigation papers, following aspects are taken into consideration by this Court:

It appears that the FIR itself has been lodged on the basis of a secret information about five persons, who were going to commit illegal activity in question;

It appears that at the time of the raid, while the cow which had allegedly been slaughtered had been recovered, none of the persons who were engaged in such activity could be caught;

It also appears that the FIR inter alia states that the police personnel could be able to make out identity of two of the persons, who had run away from the spot on basis of the torch light;

The present applicants have been arraigned as co-accused on the basis of such persons, who were alleged to be present at the site of the incident and who had run away, more particularly the secret information having been received with regard to the said persons;

As it appears that even the involvement of the other accused is based upon secret information, more particularly since none of the accused was caught on the spot and, therefore, merely on the basis of a statement of such co-accused, the present applicants could not be permitted to undergo custodial interrogation.

Having regard to the circumstances noted above, 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.11821014220089 of 2022 registered with Dhanpur Police Station, District Dahod, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with one surety of like amount each, on the following conditions that the applicants:

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

(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 4.10.2022 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 their 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 passport shall surrender the same before the Trial Court within a week;

(g) shall mark their presence once in every month for a period of next three months at the concerned Police Station;

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.