Allowed

Mukesh Bhuvanbhai Dodava v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC5 Feb 2021CR.MA/2216/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed an application for regular bail filed under Section 439 CrPC. The applicant sought release after three months in a seizure case involving POCSO offences. The charge sheet was filed, investigation complete, and victim evidence recorded. Court imposed strict conditions including non-entry into victim's district and alternate Monday reporting.

What did the court decide?

Released on regular bail on executing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety subject to stringent conditions including surrendering passport, remaining in Gujarat, and not entering the victim's district

Mukesh Bhuvanbhai Dodava Vs State of Gujarat — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Gujarat HC (2021)

¶1

R/CR.MA/2216/2021 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 2216 of 2021

¶4

======================================================= MUKESH BHUVANBHAI DODAVA Versus

¶5

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶6

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

¶7

Appearance:

¶8

MR RAJESH K SHAH(784) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR LB DABHI, APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶9

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

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER

¶11

Date : 05/02/2021

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

[1] Heard learned advocates appearing on both sides through video conferencing. Rule. Learned APP waives of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State. With the consent of both sides, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

¶14

[2] The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant for regular bail in connection with an FIR No.11218003200307 of 2020 registered with Bagvadar Police Station, District:Porbandar for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶15

[3] Mr.Rajesh Shah, learned advocate for the applicant submits that in view of earlier order passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.12849 of 2020, since three months are completed and since evidence of the victim has not started, the applicant had approached the trial Court for bail. However, such application is rejected by the trial Court only on

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

R/CR.MA/2216/2021 ORDER

¶18

the ground if the applicant is released, he will threaten the victim, as suggested by investigating officer. He further submitted that the applicant and victim were having love affair and there was consent. He also submitted that they are labourers and they are hailing from State of Madhya Pradesh. He submitted that the applicant is not likely to flee away from justice and, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. He assured the Court that the applicant will abide by all such conditions.

¶19

[4] Per contra, Mr.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. He submitted that deposition of the victim is not yet over and a successive bail application cannot be re-argued on merits. He also submitted that the victim is below 16 years of age and the applicant may interfere with the deposition of the victim. He, therefore, prays that discretion may not be exercised in favour of the applicant.

¶20

[5] Having considered the submissions made by both the sides as well as the material placed on record, it is clear that charge sheet is already filed. Earlier this Court passed an order to the effect that the applicant was granted liberty to file such application after recording of evidence of the victim or after three months from the date of order, whichever is earlier. Now, admittedly more than three months have passed. This Court has also clarified that the Court has not gone into the merits of the case. Considering the fact that charge sheet is filed and ther eis no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant, this application can be considered by imposing stringent conditions.

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

R/CR.MA/2216/2021 ORDER

¶23

This Court has heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not invite reasoned order. This Court has considered following aspects:-

¶24

(i) Applicant is aged 21 years.

¶25

(ii) He is in jail since 29.5.2020. (iii) Since the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed, there is no chance of applicant tampering with evidence.

¶26

(v) FIR is lodged after almost 45 days from the date of incident.

¶27

(vi) This Court has also considered the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 .

¶28

(vii) This Court has also taken into consideration the assurance given on behalf of the applicant that he will abide by all conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

¶29

[6] In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Hence, the present application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with an FIR being FIR No.11218003200307 of 2020 registered with Bagvadar Police Station, District:Porbandar on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and subject to the conditions that the applicant shall;

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

R/CR.MA/2216/2021 ORDER

¶32

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

¶33

[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

¶34

[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

¶35

[d] not leave the State of Gujarat for a period of six months without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;

¶36

[e] not enter in local limits of the District, where the victim is residing, for a period of six months, except for attending Court proceedings or police investigation;

¶37

[f] shall mark presence on alternative Monday for a period of six months to the nearest Police Station, where he is going to reside for six months and after entering into Porbandar District, mark presence with the concerned Police Station on alternate Monday for a period of six months between 10.00 a.m and 2.00 p.m.

¶38

[g] furnish latest and permanent address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;

¶39

[7] The Authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the learned Lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law. At the trial,

¶40

Page 4 of 5

¶41

R/CR.MA/2216/2021 ORDER

¶42

learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage, made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶43

[8] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Registry is directed to serve this order to the concerned authority through e- mail/fax or any other electronic mode.

¶44

(DR. A. P. THAKER, J)

¶45

R.S. MALEK

¶46

Page 5 of 5

Mukesh Bhuvanbhai Dodava v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Bhuvanbhai Dodava 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

State of Gujarat Vs Bai Hawaben Pujajabhai Malek

M/S.H.K.Chemicals Vs M/S. Ajanta Chemicals a Partnership Firm

Metro Appliances, Vs State Bank of Saurashtra

Ashwinbhai Ganbhubhai Kamboya (Chu.Koli) Vs State of Gujarat

Baroda Cotton Corp. Vs Punjab National Bank

Kankaria Cotton Corp. Vs Punjab National Bank