Bail with tough conditions, passport surrender, prior permission needed to travel outside India, rights to police to further apply for custodial interrogation etc etc for 498a accused husband. Court has taken note of the fact that the case is about alleged events in Bangalore where wife stayed just 12 days !
This wife who stayed only 12 days in place of allegation seems to have ALSO ROPED IN THE UNCLE IN LAW !!
Gujarat High Court
Praveenkumar Udaypratap Singh vs State Of Gujarat on 5 February, 2019
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 24293 of 2018
PRAVEENKUMAR UDAYPRATAP SINGH
STATE OF GUJARAT
ADITYA A CHOKSI(7835) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK APP(2) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 05/02/2019
- By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicantaccused has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. I- 83/2018 registered with Songadh Police Station, Tapi for the offenses punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 503, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 5 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Learned advocate 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.
- Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition R/CR.MA/24293/2018 ORDER 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.
- Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail and pointed out from the investigation papers that the amount as stated in the FIR is transferred in the bank account of the applicant. She further contended that there is specific allegation in the FIR about the torture given by the applicant at Bengalore and, therefore, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant.
- Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record including investigation papers 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.
- This Court has considered the following aspects, (a) FIR is filed for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code for the alleged incident, which has occurred at Bengalore; (b) it is not in dispute that the complainant had stayed for 12 days only at Bengalore; (c) while granting anticipatory bail to the uncleinlaw i.e. the coaccused, this Court has observed in the order dated 24.12.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.22364/2018 that “attention is drawn to the allegations in the FIR itself where it is coming out that the expenditure of marriage, which took place at Uttar Pradesh, was footed by the family of the applicant and the incident of settling the accounts thereafter“. Thus from the said observation made by this Court, the contention of learned advocate for the applicant about the transfer of the money in the account of the present applicant or parent is supported by the said observation. Therefore in view of the above facts, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required.
- 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  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 665.
- 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 a FIR being C.R. No. I-83/2018 registered with Songadh Police Station, Tapi on his 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 08.02.2019 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 his residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders; (f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the 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;
- 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.
- At the trial, the 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.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) Gautam