Allowed

Purohit Yashkumar Alpeshkumar v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC1 Dec 2021CR.MA/15118/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench order granting anticipatory bail to an accused accused under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. Court allowed bail on behalf of the accused with a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and one surety of like amount subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of like amount subject to conditions of availability for interrogation and specific statutory undertakings.

Purohit Yashkumar Alpeshkumar Vs State of Gujarat — Dowry and Cruelty | Gujarat HC (2021)

¶1

R/CR.MA/15118/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 15118 of 2021

¶4

======================================= PUROHIT YASHKUMAR ALPESHKUMAR

¶5

Versus

¶6

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶7

======================================= Appearance:

¶8

MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS MH BHATT, APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶9

=======================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI

¶11

Date : 01/12/2021

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

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 being C. R. No. 11206008210262 of 2021, registered with Bahucharaji Police Station, District: Mehsana for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 354A, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶14

Heard learned advocate Mr. P. P. Majmudar for learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP Ms. M. H. Bhatt for the respondent – State.

¶15

The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with the aforesaid FIR. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the application filed by the present applicant for grant of

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

R/CR.MA/15118/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2021

¶18

anticipatory bail. The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is charged with the aforesaid offences under the IPC and also the Dowry Prohibition Act, however, the ingredients of the said offences have not been satisfied. It is submitted that prior to registration of the FIR in question, the applicant, having apprehension, had made two applications before the concerned Police Officer at Bahucharaji Police Station, respectively on 09.06.2021 and 20.06.2021 and reply was also given by the applicant to the concerned Police Officer on 23.06.2021. It is submitted that copies of all such communications are on record. Further, it is submitted that the applicant has no antecedents. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as such there being no prima facie case, it is urged that present application may kindly be allowed and the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶19

3.1 The learned advocate for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation as well as during trial and will not flee from justice.

¶20

3.2 The 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 remand. It is further submitted 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. The learned advocate, therefore, submitted that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

R/CR.MA/15118/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2021

¶23

Per contra , the learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent – State, while submitting the report from the IO, which is taken on record, has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that there are allegations of physical and mental torture to the original complainant by the applicant. Further, a huge amount of Rs.8,46,427/- has been withdrawn from the account of the original complainant, as per the report of the IO. Accordingly, in the said set of facts and circumstances, it is requested that this application may not be entertained and be dismissed.

¶24

Having heard the arguments advanced by 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 offence, role attributed to the applicant – accused, more particularly, the fact that prior to the registration of the FIR in question, two applications have been filed by the applicant before the concerned police station and the fact that the applicant has no antecedents, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, the Court is inclined exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. As per catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court there are mainly two factors which are required to be considered by this Court;

¶25

i) prima facie case;

¶26

ii) requirement of accused for custodial interrogation.

¶27

5.1 Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Court is inclined to consider the case of the applicant.

¶28

5.2 The Court has also taken into consideration the law laid

¶29

Page 3 of 5

¶30

R/CR.MA/15118/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2021

¶31

down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (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 , (1980) 2 SCC 565 . Further, the Court has also taken into consideration the ratio laid down in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr., MANU/SC/0100/2020 (passed in Special Leave Petition No. 7281–7282/2017 on 29.01.2020 ) and in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State Of Bihar & Another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 , wherein the Apex Court has observed that whenever there is punishment of 7 years, the Court would be liberal to exercise the discretion.

¶32

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 the above-referred FIR on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Five Thousand only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions:

¶33

a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make available for interrogation whenever required;

¶34

b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 31.12.2021 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

¶35

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;

¶36

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;

¶37

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;

¶38

Page 4 of 5

¶39

R/CR.MA/15118/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2021

¶40

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;

¶41

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 the remand application without being influenced of the observations made by this Court.

¶42

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.

¶43

7.1 At the trial, the concerned trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.

¶44

Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.

¶45

[ A. C. Joshi, J. ]

¶46

hiren /49

¶47

Page 5 of 5

Purohit Yashkumar Alpeshkumar v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purohit Yashkumar Alpeshkumar v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramnikbhai Vaghjibhai Kakadiya(Patel) Vs the State of Gujarat

Kishorbhai Ambalal Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Nimesh Karshanbhai Maheshwari Vs State of Gujarat

Pratikbhai Rameshbhai Gohil Vs State of Gujarat

Dineshbhai Ravibhai Maradiya Vs State of Gujarat

Bhaveshbhai Kishanbhai Jadav Vs State of Gujarat