Nirzar S. Desai, J
1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - accused has prayed for anticipatory
bail in connection with the FIR bearing C.R.No.11191015211324 of 2021 dated 27.8.2021 registered with Nikol Police Station, District : Ahmedabad
for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 384, 387, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5, 33(3) and 42 of the Gujarat Money Laundering
Act.
2. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not
necessary. He further submits that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation, trial also and will not flee from justice.
3. 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 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.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent â€" State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature
and gravity of the offence.
5. Having heard 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.
6. Learned advocates appearing for the parties though argued the matter with full force and vehements upon the conclusion of the arguments there
consensus among advocates appearing for the private parties i.e. applicant and the original complainant that evidence may not be discussed in detailed
as the same may have some affect on the case of either side during the course of trial and it may lead to filing of other appropriate application like
quashing also and therefore, upon instructions learned advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda appearing with learned advocate Mr. A.A. Zabuawala states that
this Court may not assigned detailed reasons and hence this Court has considered following aspects :-
(i) It is alleged that the present applicant had landed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the deceased and had landed the aforesaid amount at interest of 6% and
though a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was repaid, he still was demanding money.
However, apart from the admission that the deceased had borrowed money from the present applicant, the rate of interest and amount repaid by the
deceased person is a matter of evidence;
(ii) though in the FIR it is stated that the applicant had given threats to the deceased person, even upon a specific quarry to the Investigating Officer as
well as learned advocate appearing for the complainant Mr.Zubin Bharda nothing had come out and neither learned Additional Public Prosecutor nor
learned advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda could point out that the present applicant had acted in furtherance of the aforesaid threat which would compel the
deceased to commit suicide;
(iii) prima-facie the record indicates that there was no action by the present applicant in the near approximate time around 72 hours before the
deceased committed suicide;
(iv) However, ultimately the aforesaid aspect would be dealt with in detailed at the stage of trial and this observation is tentative in nature based on the
investigation carried out till now and shall be subject to any further investigation;
(v) learned advocate appearing for the applicant upon instruction states that there is no past antecedent reported against the present applicant;
(vi) though the present applicant is enjoying the relief since 30.11.2021, till date nothing adverse is reported against the present applicant.
(viii) the applicant has shown readiness and willingness to co-operate with the investigation;
7. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required, I am inclined to consider the
case of the applicant.
8. 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.
9. In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with FIR
bearing C.R.No.11191015211324 of 2021 dated 27.8.2021 registered with Nikol Police Station, District : Ahmedabad, 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 himself available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 7.7.2023 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 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 it on merits;
10. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant. 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 concerned trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.