R/CR.MA/16343/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 16343 of 2024
==========================================================
SAROJDEVI GOPINATH PERIWAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
========================================================== Appearance:
MR. KISHAN H DAIYA(6929) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR MANAN MEHTA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 29/08/2024
ORAL ORDER
Rule. Mr.Mehta, learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent State.
1. 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 No.11210023240905 of 2024 registered with Khatodara Police Station, Dist.Surat.
2. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that no specific role has been attributed qua the present applicant in commission of offence in question. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the Applicant is apprehending arrest in connection the aforesaid FIR and in this connection the earlier application filed by the applicant before the learned Sessions Court came to be dis-allowed. Learned Advocate for
Page 1 of 5
the applicant has submitted that just to give criminal colour, a false and frivolous complaint is created to pressurize the present applicant, and therefore, the present application may kindly be allowed.
3.1 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail contending that present applicant being mother-in-law of the deceased had played an active role in commission of offence as at her behest demands of dowry were made from the deceased because of which the deceased committed suicide. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the present application.
3.2 Learned advocate Mr.Virat Popat for original complainant has also opposed the present application contending that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and before marriage of the deceased with the son of the present applicant, the exchange of dowry had taken place which finds reference in the suicide note of the deceased. Thus, there is demand of dowry made by the present applicant at the time of marriage of the deceased with her son and as such present applicant has played active role in commission of offence. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the application.
Page 2 of 5
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the record.
5.1 From the record it appears that the charge-sheet has been filed against other co-accused. Having referred to the said charge-sheet, it appears that deceased was having an illicit relationship with some person named Nishant Singh and the said Nishant Singh was forcing the deceased to divorce her husband and to marry with him and because of the said pressure, the deceased appears to have committed suicide. Having regard to the nature of offence, this application deserves consideration.
5.2 This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported at [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, reported at (1980) 2 SCC 565. Further, this Court has also taken into consideration the ratio laid down in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. in Special Leave Petition No. 7281-7282/2017 dated 29.01.2020.
6. In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicants are ordered to be released on bail in the event of
Page 3 of 5
arrest in connection with aforesaid FIR on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions:
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 03.09.2024 between 12.00 Noon and 2.00 p.m.;
(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;
(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;
(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;
(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the concerned trial court and if having passport shall deposit the
Page 4 of 5
same before the concerned trial court within a week.
7. At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
8. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
MISHRA AMIT V.
Page 5 of 5
Comments