Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

Must Read

Madras HC Reaffirms Trial Court’s Decree in Case of Thimmaraya & Ors. V. Gowrammal

A Civil Revision Petition was filed by three petitioners against the dismissal of their application on the file of...

Delhi High Court Disposes Ashok Arora’s Appeal Against Suspension From Supreme Court Bar Association

In the present Petition, Senior Advocate Ashok Arora challenged an Order passed by a Single Judge bench. The Order...

Allahabad High Court Dismisses Application To Quash Prima Facie Allegations of Criminal Intimidation and Outraging Modesty

Allahabad High Court, on 17th November 2020, dismissed an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and refused to...

Delhi High Court Prohibits Gathering in Public Places To Celebrate Chhat Puja

The Order had come in a Writ Petition moved by Shri Durga Jan Seva Trust. The Petition sought to...

Bombay High Court Directs State To Pass Tribe Claim Within Two Weeks, Refuses To Intervene on Merits of Claim Itself

The Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S.S. Shinde and Madhav Jayajirao Jamdar passed an order...

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition by Allocating Respondent To Vacancy in IFS Cadre

On 16th November 2020, the Division Bench at Kerala High Court, consisting of Honourable Justice A.M. Shaffique and Honourable...

Follow us

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him on anticipatory bail. The Bench perused the record of the case and orders to grant anticipatory bail to the Applicant in the case of Irfan Karim Solanki vs the State of Gujarat.

Facts of the Case

The applicant had been arrested in connection with the FIR being Part A C.R.No.11214020201278 of 2020 registered with Kamrej Police Station, Surat for the offences committed under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and Sections 323, 324, 394, 504, 506 (2), 143, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC. 

However, Section 438 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides a direction to the persons apprehending arrest for grant of bail. Section 438(1) provides that if any person believes that he may have been arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, then he may apply to the High Court for his release. So, by way of an application under this section, the Accused in the present application prayed that he should be released on anticipatory bail.

Petitioner’s Submissions

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted the following arguments before the Court:

The nature of allegations on the applicant was not such for which custodial interrogation was necessary at this stage. The Applicant’s co-accused was already released by this Court. The Applicant, i.e. the original Accused was available during the full course of the investigation and would not flee from justice. The Applicant would willfully abide by all the conditions imposed upon him, also regarding Investigating Agency’s powers to apply before the Contempt Court for his remand.

Respondent’s Submissions

Looking at the nature and gravity of the offence committed by the Petitioner, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent State opposed granting of anticipatory bail to him.

Court’s Observations

After hearing the Learned Counsel of both the parties, perusing the record of the case taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations and role attributed to the Accused, the Court observed that there were various aspects to be considered in the present case. The facts considered were that there were cross complaints about the present incident and the co-accused of the Petitioner had already been released on bail by a coordinate Bench of the same Court.

In addition to considering that, the Court also clarified that it had taken into consideration the submission by the learned counsel on behalf of the applicant that he would be ready and willing to abide by all the conditions imposed by the Court.

Before giving the final judgement, the Court also took into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. (1980) 2 SCC 665 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) AIR 2020 SC 831.

Court’s Directions

As a result of various observations by the Court, and on the ground of parity, the Court allowed the present petition to grant anticipatory bail to the Applicant.

The Court directed Kamrej Police Station, District: Surat Rural to release the Accused on bail, but only when he furnished a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/ with one surety of like amount, subject to the given conditions.

Despite the Order, the Court also mentioned that the Investigating Agency would have the power to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the Applicant. It was further clarified that if the Applicant was remanded to the police custody then upon completion of its period, he should be immediately set free. This would, however, be subject to the conditions of the anticipatory bail order.

It was also directed that at the trial, the Trial Court wouldn’t be influenced by the prima facie observations made by the Court while enlarging the applicant on bail in the present case. The rule was made absolute.

Click here to view the Judgement.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras HC Reaffirms Trial Court’s Decree in Case of Thimmaraya & Ors. V. Gowrammal

A Civil Revision Petition was filed by three petitioners against the dismissal of their application on the file of the Sub-Judge, Hosur. The case...

Delhi High Court Disposes Ashok Arora’s Appeal Against Suspension From Supreme Court Bar Association

In the present Petition, Senior Advocate Ashok Arora challenged an Order passed by a Single Judge bench. The Order held that Mr Arora had...

Allahabad High Court Dismisses Application To Quash Prima Facie Allegations of Criminal Intimidation and Outraging Modesty

Allahabad High Court, on 17th November 2020, dismissed an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and refused to quash the charge sheet (dated...

Delhi High Court Prohibits Gathering in Public Places To Celebrate Chhat Puja

The Order had come in a Writ Petition moved by Shri Durga Jan Seva Trust. The Petition sought to quash and set aside an...

Bombay High Court Directs State To Pass Tribe Claim Within Two Weeks, Refuses To Intervene on Merits of Claim Itself

The Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S.S. Shinde and Madhav Jayajirao Jamdar passed an order on 17th November 2020 in...

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition by Allocating Respondent To Vacancy in IFS Cadre

On 16th November 2020, the Division Bench at Kerala High Court, consisting of Honourable Justice A.M. Shaffique and Honourable Justice Gopinath. P heard the...

AP High Court: If an Auction Is Conducted by a Cooperative Bank, the Property Ceases to be Property of the State

A single-judge bench consisting of honourable justice Ninala Jayasurya gave orders on the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The petition challenges the action...

Madras HC Rules in Favour of the Authorities in FMGE Examination, Finds Writ Petitions Against the Exam Void of Merit

Three aspirants of Foreign Medical Examinations moved to the High Court by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. They...

Hong Kong High Court Rules for Independent Mechanisms To Be Set up To Deal With Complaints Against Police Officers

The present suit was brought by a journalist association because of the police brutality that the protestors faced in the protests against the China...

Madras High Court Maintains That Government Policy Is To Prioritize Own State’s Candidates and Sets Aside Nativity Certificate Rejection Order

Varsha Totagi, a NEET aspirant filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. She had been denied Nativity Certificate without which...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -