Libertatem Magazine

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

Contents of this Page

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. 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.

About the Author