Allowed

Rajeshbhai @ Raju Devjibhai Vora v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC5 Oct 2021CR.MA/9030/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat allowed an application under Section 438 CrPC for anticipatory bail. Reiterating Apex Court precedents, the court granted bail subject to personal bond and strict conditions including non-fleeing and cooperation with investigation, clarifying that remand applications remain open to the police.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; granted anticipatory bail subject to personal bond of Rs.10,000 and surety, with specific conditions for residence, travel, and cooperation.

Rajeshbhai @ Raju Devjibhai Vora Vs State of Gujarat — Bail and Remand | Gujarat HC (2021)

¶1

R/CR.MA/9030/2021 ORDER DATED: 05/10/2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 9030 of 2021

¶4

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

¶5

RAJESHBHAI @ RAJU DEVJIBHAI VORA

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶8

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

¶9

MR. PERCY KAVINA, SR. ADVOCATE with MR YATIN SONI(868) for the Applicant(s) No. 1

¶10

MR K S CHANDRANI(6674) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR. L. B. DABHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

¶13

Date : 05/10/2021

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

This application is filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR registered at C.R. No.I-11208053211150 of 2021 with RAJKOT TALUKA POLICE STATION, DISTRICT-RAJKOT, for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 406, 387, 114, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant would submit that considering the nature of offence, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions.

¶17

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has opposed this application and granting anticipatory bail to the applicant looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

¶18

Learned Advocate for the complainant submitted that the suicide note

¶19

Page 1 of 5

¶20

R/CR.MA/9030/2021 ORDER DATED: 05/10/2021

¶21

indicates the name of the applicant. It is submitted that applicant has played role not only as Lawyer, but had acted, which more than Lawyer, as evident from the statement of Falkanbhai, triggering upon for the extreme steps taken by the deceased, as Public Advertisement issued in immediate past to the actual incident. Warning public at large from the deceased attempt to sale residential premises of the deceased to any other persons as client of the applicant, had part consideration and had interest in the property.

¶22

I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, perused the investigation papers and have also taken into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the applicantaccused. Without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

¶23

Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported at [2011] 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia and others, reported at (1980) 2 SCC 665.

¶24

Following aspects are also considered:-

¶25

(I) The F.I.R. is registered on 05-05-2021 for the offence which is alleged to have taken place between 08-01-2021 to 04-05-2021;

¶26

(II) Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that investigation pertains to suicide committed by brother of the deceased and his family members. Deceased – brother having administered poisoned to other family members in the guise of being medicine for Corona virus.

¶27

(III) Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant

¶28

Page 2 of 5

¶29

R/CR.MA/9030/2021 ORDER DATED: 05/10/2021

¶30

is an Advocate of repute and was acting in the interest of his client, who had paid money to the deceased for the purchase of residential premises.

¶31

(IV) Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that even as per the investigation done so far, the applicant had met the deceased in the month of January, 2021 in connection with the sale of his residential premises. Thereafter, there is no meeting so as to attract the ingredient of Section-306 of IPC to abate the offence.

¶32

(V) Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that since long the deceased was trying to sale his residential premises and the applicant has acted as an Advocate for the deceased himself, which is evident from the statement of the witness- Paresh Janani. It is coming out on record that initially deal was with witness- Paresh Janani paid the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) to the deceased. The applicant had advanced the deceased, while he wanted to cancel the deal with said Paresh Janani who in his statement recorded that deceased had returned the amount of consideration. Therefore, it was evident that the deceased had received part consideration from the accused No.1 to pay to Paresh Janani.

¶33

(VI) Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that it is also coming on record that the accused No.1 had paid the deceased part consideration, but no formal documents were executed. At the same time, the deceased had also try to sale the residential premises yet to another person namely Neel Poojara, whose statement indicates payment of part consideration to the deceased.

¶34

(VII) Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that statement of the applicant is recorded and the co-accused namely accused No.1 has already enlarged on regular bail. Hence, applying principle of parity.

¶35

(VIII) The Court has taken into consideration the order dated 07-062021, wherein elaborate reasons have been assigned while granting initial protection to the applicant and thereafter, the same has been extended from time to time.

¶36

(IX) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor under the instructions of the Investigating Officer is unable to bring on record any special circumstances against the applicant.

¶37

Learned Advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is

¶38

Page 3 of 5

¶39

R/CR.MA/9030/2021 ORDER DATED: 05/10/2021

¶40

ready and willing to abide by all the conditions, including imposition of conditions with regard to the powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent court for his remand. He would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of the applicant-accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open.

¶41

In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest of the applicant herein in connection with FIR registered as C.R. No.I-11208053211150 of 2021 with RAJKOT TALUKA POLICE

¶42

STATION, DISTRICT-RAJKOT, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousands only) with one surety of the like amount on the following conditions that he :

¶43

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

¶44

(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 14-10-2021 between 11.00 AM and 02.00 PM;

¶45

(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;

¶46

(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and shall not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

¶47

(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 without the permission of Trial Court;

¶48

(f) To mark presence once in month before the concerned Police Station till filing of the charge-sheet;

¶49

Page 4 of 5

¶50

R/CR.MA/9030/2021 ORDER DATED: 05/10/2021

¶51

(g) shall not leave India without the permission of the Trial Court and if having passport, shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; and

¶52

(h) 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 same on merits;

¶53

Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for Police remand of the applicant. 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.

¶54

At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶55

10.The application is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Direct service is permitted.

¶56

(A.Y. KOGJE, J)

¶57

PARESH SOMPURA

¶58

Page 5 of 5

Rajeshbhai @ Raju Devjibhai Vora v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeshbhai @ Raju Devjibhai Vora 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

Iqbal @ Iku Musa Gaj Vs State of Gujarat

Nilesh Arjanbhai Chundavadara Vs State of Gujarat

Habib Shamsherbhai Parmar Vs State of Gujarat

Shakeelahmed Shafik Ahmed Vs State of Gujarat

Aakash Rambilas Jaju Vs State of Gujarat

Sandipbhai Natubhai Solanki Vs State of Gujarat