In a recent judgment by the Gujarat High Court, anticipatory bail was granted in a case involving offenses under IPC Sections 306, 498A, 323. The court considered the application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 where the applicant-accused sought anticipatory bail for FIR C.R. No. 11191033240148/2024. The court reviewed important legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, leading to the decision to grant bail. Stay tuned for more insights into this case!
Facts
- Application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- Applicant-accused seeking anticipatory bail for FIR C.R. No. 11191033240148/2024 at Meghani Nagar Police Station, Ahmedabad.
- Offenses punishable under Sections 306, 498A, 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
- Heard arguments from learned Advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli for the Applicant and learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the State.
Arguments
- The respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail based on the nature and gravity of the offence.
- The married life between the applicant and the deceased was only eight months, leading to a presumption against the applicant under the Evidence Act.
- It was claimed that during the short duration of marriage, the deceased faced physical and mental torture from the applicant, leading to suspicions about her character and eventual suicide.
- The Application for anticipatory bail was prayed to be dismissed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
- The FIR was lodged six months after the alleged incident, during which an accidental death case was registered where no family members mentioned any torture by the applicant.
- It was noted that the applicant and the deceased were living apart due to their jobs, with no evidence of being together on the date of the incident.
- After considering arguments, material on record, allegations, and the role attributed to the accused, the Court inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Analysis
- The court considered the facts and circumstances of the case.
- The court is inclined to consider the case of the applicant.
- The judgement seems to be favorable towards the applicant.
- The Court considered the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 694.
- The Court reviewed the principles established by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565.
- The judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 was taken into account, where the Hon’ble Apex Court highlighted the discretion to be exercised when the punishment is 7 years.
- The Court also considered the ratio 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.
- The court is inclined to exercise powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
- Exercising discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. opens the doors of remand by the Investigating Officer.
Decision
- Applicant ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No 11191033240148/2024.
- Bail granted for offenses punishable under Sections 306, 498A, 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
- Conditions for bail include cooperation with investigation, appearing at police station on specified date, and not influencing witnesses.
- The applicant must not obstruct the investigation or leave the country without permission.
- Rule made absolute to the extent mentioned.
- The application for anticipatory bail is allowed.
Case Title: RAJENDRA LALUBHAI DAMA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/CR.MA/10880/2024
