Allowed

Vahidabe W/O Harunbhai Ramodiya v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC19 Feb 2021CR.MA/2779/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat granted regular bail to a female accused in a 498A case after three years of custody, noting the trial had not commenced. Bail was granted on bond with strict conditions including not entering Rajkot City for three months.

What did the court decide?

Released on regular bail on personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and one surety, subject to conditions prohibiting entry into Rajkot City for three months and requiring regular police reporting.

Vahidabe W/O Harunbhai Ramodiya Vs State of Gujarat — Bail and Remand | Gujarat HC (2021)

¶1

R/CR.MA/2779/2021 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 2779 of 2021

¶4

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

¶5

VAHIDABE W/O HARUNBHAI RAMODIYA

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶8

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

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MR NILAY A THAKER(7275) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS SHRUTI PATHAK APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI Date : 19/02/2021 ORAL ORDER

¶13

This application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed for the purpose of seeking release on regular bail in connection with the F.I.R. which was registered as C. R. No. I - 236 of 2018 before Ajidam Police Station, Rajkot for offence under Sections 498A,B,C,D, 114 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

This application has been submitted in view of order dated 13.07.2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9083 of 2020 wherein a liberty was granted to apply for bail in case the trial of the main case is not commenced within a reasonable period of six months. The said order is reflecting on page 38.

¶15

2.1 Learned advocate Mr. Nilay Thaker appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted on previous occasion that the trial has not commenced at all and as a result, the applicant has submitted this application. In that view of the matter, at the relevant point of time, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Shruti Pathak was required to inquire about the status of the trial. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Shruti Pathak appearing on behalf of the respondent State has submitted that it is true that the trial has not commenced so far and as such, the matter is taken

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

R/CR.MA/2779/2021 ORDER

¶18

up for hearing.

¶19

Learned advocate Mr. Nilay Thaker appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that considering the nature of allegations which are levelled against the applicant and in view of fact that the trial is not likely to be over within reasonable time as the same has not commenced at all, the case of the applicant for release be considered. It has been submitted that almost on similar role, the coordinate bench has entertained the application of the co-accused and released her on bail vide order dated 08.08.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.8472 of 2019 and thereby, has requested that in view of principle of parity as well, the applicant's case now be considered since the chargesheet has already been submitted and there is no likelihood of completion of trial within near future. It has been submitted that the applicant being a lady accused is languishing in jail right from 27.10.2018 and as such, at this stage, the case be considered by imposing appropriate conditions which may protect the interest of the prosecution as well. It has further been submitted after referring to relevant papers of the charge-sheet that the roles of the present applicant and another lady accused are almost similar. It is only the house belonging to the applicant from where the offence is stated to have been committed, otherwise the role is substantially similar. Apart from that, learned advocate Mr. Thaker has submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by any condition which may be imposed by the Court while releasing the applicant on bail and under the instructions, he has also stated that the applicant would like to invite a condition to remain outside Rajkot City till the trial is commenced or at least for a period of three months from now and as such, considering these submissions and in view of the fact that the applicant is a lady accused, the request be considered.

¶20

Page 2 of 5

¶21

R/CR.MA/2779/2021 ORDER

¶22

As against this, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Shruti Pathak appearing on behalf of the respondent State has opposed the grant of application looking to the gravity of the offence and has submitted that printing machine has also been found from the possession of the present applicant and therefore, it cannot be said that the roles of the present applicant and another lady accused are similar. However, learned APP has candidly submitted that so far the trial has not commenced and as such after raising objection, has left it to the discretion of the Court.

¶23

Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, having gone through the material on record, taking into consideration the nature of allegations, gravity of offence and role attributed to the applicant, without much discussing at this stage, the Court is of the opinion that since the trial has not yet commenced and for three years, the applicant being lady accused is behind the bar, a case is made out for release now in view of aforesaid circumstance. The Court has also considered the aspect that in this case, the charge-sheet has already been filed and right from October 2018, the applicant is behind the bar and there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded within near future. The Court is also of the considered opinion that without much entering into the merits or de-merits, the case of the applicant for release on appropriate conditions is made out.

¶24

5.1 The Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40 and considering the overall circumstance, the application deserves to be allowed and accordingly, the same is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with the F.I.R. registered as C. R. No. I - 236 of 2018 before Ajidam Police Station, Rajkot on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one

¶25

Page 3 of 5

¶26

R/CR.MA/2779/2021 ORDER

¶27

surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and the applicant is also bound by following conditions :-

¶28

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

¶29

[b] Applicant shall not act in a manner prejudicial or injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

¶30

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

¶31

[d] Applicant shall not leave Gujarat as well as India without prior permission of the Sessions Court concerned;

¶32

[e] Applicant shall not enter Rajkot City for a period of three months from now and shall furnish her address to the concerned Investigating Officer and shall report to nearby police station where the applicant would reside for a period for which she is not required to enter Rajkot City and shall mark her presence on 1^st to 10^th day of every English Calendar Month for a period of three months between 11:00 a. m. and 2:00 p. m.;

¶33

[f] After lapse of three months' period, the applicant will have to regularly mark her presence on the aforesaid days and time to the nearby police station from her usual residence and shall readily available in the trial proceedings;

¶34

[g] The intimation of the residential address shall be furnished by the applicant without fail at the time of execution of bond and while changing residential address after lapse of three months period, a due intimation shall be given to the Investigating Agency;

¶35

The authority will release the applicant upon the aforesaid conditions only if the applicant is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the concerned Sessions Judge will be free to issue warrant

¶36

Page 4 of 5

¶37

R/CR.MA/2779/2021 ORDER

¶38

or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case.

¶39

It is made clear that the trial court while conducting the trial shall not be influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in the present order.

¶40

Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

¶41

Direct service is permitted.

¶42

(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)

¶43

cmk

¶44

Page 5 of 5

Vahidabe W/O Harunbhai Ramodiya v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vahidabe W/O Harunbhai Ramodiya 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

Bai Jambuben Wd/O Khandubhai Manchhabhai Garasia Vs State of Gujarat

Manekben D/O Ramabhai Dhanji Bhai Vs State of Gujarat

Manojbhai Dahyabhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Patel Priyankkumar Manilal Vs State of Gujarat

Mer Lakhdirbhai Harjibhai Vs State of Gujarat

Dharmeshkumar Bhikhabhai Leuva Vs State of Gujarat