Dilip Narottamdas Motwani vs State Of Gujarat on 15 October, 2018

Gujarat-High-Court
Bench: R.P.Dholaria
          R/CR.MA/19522/2018                            ORDER




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 19522 of 2018

==========================================================
                         DILIP NAROTTAMDAS MOTWANI
                                    Versus
                               STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ZUBIN F BHARDA(159) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR. MITESH AMIN, PP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA

                               Date : 15/10/2018

                                ORAL ORDER

1. Mr. Tejas Shukla, learned advocate is permitted  to   file   his   vakalatnama   on   behalf   of   the  complainant.

2. Rule. Mr. Mitesh Amin, learned PP waives service  of notice of rule on behalf of respondent­State.

3. Heard   Mr.   Zubin   F.   Barda,   learned   advocate   for  the applicant and Mr.  Mitesh Amin, learned PP for  the respondent­State.

4. By way of the preferring the present application  under   Section   438   of   the   Code   of   Criminal  Procedure,   1973,   the   applicant   seeks   grant   of  R/CR.MA/19522/2018 ORDER anticipatory   bail   in   the   event   of   his   arrest   in  connection with the FIR being C.R.No.I­120 of 2018  registered   with   Maninagar   Police   Station,  Ahmedabad,   for   the   offences   punishable   under  Sections   406,   420,   465,   467,   468,   471,   506(1),  120(b) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that  the   nature   of   allegations   are   such   for   which  custodial   interrogation   at   this   stage   is   not  necessary.   Besides,   the   applicant   is   available  during   the   course   of   investigation   and   will   not  flee   from   justice.   In   view   of   the   above,   the  applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

6. 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   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 applicant to oppose such application  R/CR.MA/19522/2018 ORDER on merits may be kept open.

7. Mr.   Mitesh   Amin,   Learned   Public   Prosecutor  appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respondent­State   has  opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the  nature and gravity of the offence.

8. I   have   considered   the   allegations   leveled  against   the   applicant   in   the   FIR   and   perused   the  papers   of   investigation   and   considered   the   role  attributed   to   the   applicant   and   also   considered  that the present applicant was performing his duty  of   Company   Secretary   and   his   work   is   ministerial  in   nature   and   no   benefit   alleged   to   have   been  derived by him.

9. Having heard learned counsels for the respective  parties   and   perusing   the   record   of   the   case   and  taking   into   consideration   the   facts   of   the   case,  nature   of   allegations,   role   attributed   to   the  accused and punishment prescribed for the alleged  offences,   without   discussing   the   evidence   in  detail,   at   this   stage,   I   am   inclined   to   grant  anticipatory bail to the applicant. This Court has  also taken into consideration the law laid down by R/CR.MA/19522/2018 ORDER the   Hon’ble   Apex   Court   in   the   case   of  Siddharam   Satlingappa   Mhetre   v.   State   of   Maharashtra   and   Ors.  reported   in  (2011)1   SCC   694,  wherein   the  Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by  the   Constitutional   Bench   in   the   case   of  Shri  Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors., reported in (1980)2   SCC 565.

10. In   the   result,   the   present   application   is  allowed   by   directing   that   in   the   event   of  applicant   herein   being   arrested   pursuant   to   FIR  being  C.R.No.I­120   of   2018  registered   with  Maninagar Police Station, Ahmedabad,  the applicant  shall   be   released   on   anticipatory   bail   on  furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/­ (Rupees  Ten   Thousands   only)   with   one   surety   of   like  amount, on the following conditions:

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

(b)  shall   remain   present   at   the   concerned  Police   Station   on  22.10.2018   between   11:00 R/CR.MA/19522/2018 ORDER 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   his   residence   till   the   final  disposal   of   the   case   or   till   further  orders;

(f)  shall   not   leave   India   without   prior  permission   of   the   Court   and,   if   having  passport,   shall   surrender   the   same   before  the Trial Court within a week.

11. Despite   this   order,   it   would   be   open   for   the  Investigating Agency to file an application for  R/CR.MA/19522/2018 ORDER 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.

12. At   the   trial,   the   Trial   Court   shall   not   be  influenced by the prima facie observations made R/CR.MA/19522/2018 ORDER by   this   Court   while   enlarging   the   applicant   on  bail.   Rule   is   made   absolute   to   the   aforesaid  extent.

    Direct service is permitted.

(R.P.DHOLARIA, J) SAURABH R. CHAUHAN

Rustomjee Realty Pvt.Ltd. And … vs State Of Maharashtra And 4 Ors on 27 November, 2018

Appeals against sentence or conviction in summary proceedings before the sheriff courts or justice of the peace courts are heard before the Sheriff AppealCourt. The High Court also hears appeals in cases referred to it by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.

Court of Criminal Appeal – Wikipedia


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Criminal_Appeal

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *