Nikhil S. Kariel, J
1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Namrata H. Chauhan for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi on behalf of the
respondent-State.
2. Issue Rule in Criminal Misc. Application No. 16379 of 2022 returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the
respondent-State.
3. By way of these applications under Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant anticipatory bail in connection with 11193004220651 of 2022 registered
with Section 438 of the Code of prays for being released on the FIR being C.R. No. Amreli Rural Police Station, District Amreli, and the FIR being
C.R. No. 11193003220751 of 2022 registered with Amreli City Police Station, District Amreli, on 08.08.2022, for offences punishable under Sections
406, 420, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. At the outset, learned APP Mr. Dabhi for the respondent-State draws the attention of this Court to an order dated 07.10.2022, whereby this Court
had directed the Geologist concerned to remain present before this Court, more particularly in context of an allegation that the concerned Officer was
not co-operating with the investigation. Today, Mr. Sumit Chauhan, Geologist, is present and whereas he has informed this Court that he has
cooperated with the investigation and he has provided all the documents as required by the Investigating Officer. Mr. Chauhan also assures this Court
that he would co-operate with the investigation and would provide all such material, documents and information as may be sought for by the
Investigating Officer. Having regard to such a submission made by the concerned Officer, this Court dispenses with personal presence of the Officer
concerned.
5. Learned Advocate Ms. Namrata H. Chauhan for the applicant would submit that the nature of allegations in both the aforesaid FIRs are such for
which custodial interrogation of the applicant 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.
Learned Advocate Ms. Namrata H. Chauhan 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. Learned Advocate would 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.
6. These applications have been vehemently opposed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Dabhi appearing on behalf of the respondent-State,
who would submit that looking to the nature and gravity of the offences the applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail by this Court.
7. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the investigating papers as well as documents on record, the following
relevant aspects are considered by this Court:
[1] It appears that insofar as the FIR being C.R. No. 11193004220651 of 2022 is concerned, the same had been filed alleging that while there was a
vehicle in which sand had been loaded from the stockyard of the present applicant, a truck with the same registration number had already been seized
by the police authorities and was lying in their custody.
[2] It also appears that similar allegations have been levelled in the FIR being C.R. No. 11193003220751 of 2022 and the truck therein is in custody of
the authorities concerned.
[3] This Court has considered the submission of learned APP Mr. Dabhi that the royalty passes which were produced by the persons concerned when
the trucks in question had been detained are genuine and whereas there is no doubt about the fact that the said royalty passes have been issued by the
concerned authorities.
[4] Having regard to such an aspect, while it prima faice appears that there may be some discrepancies with regard to number of the vehicle and
whereas since the royalty passes itself are stated to be genuine, therefore at this stage, in the considered opinion of this Court, there would be no
requirement for the present applicant to undergo custodial interrogation in connection with either of the offences.
8. In this view of the matter 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 these applications.
9. In the result, the present applications are allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to the FIR being C.R.
No. 11193004220651 of 2022 registered with Amreli Rural Police Station, District Amreli, and the FIR being C.R. No. 11193003220751 of 2022
registered with Amreli City Police Station, District Amreli, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of like amount in connection with each of the above FIRs and on the following conditions that the
applicant:
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at the Amreli Rural Police Station on 14.10.2022 and shall remain present at the Amreli City Police Station on 15.10.2022
between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. ;
(c) shall mark his presence at the aforesaid Police Stations once in a month for a period of three months;
(d) 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;
(e) 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;
(f) 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;
(g) 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.
10. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to file an application for 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.
11. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
