In a recent judgement by the Gujarat High Court, anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant in connection with an FIR at Puna Police Station, Surat. The case involves a consensual relationship between the applicant and the complainant, where the FIR was filed under Section 376 of IPC. After analyzing the arguments presented by the Additional Public Prosecutor and the advocate for the complainant, the court found no evidence of coercion or force by the applicant. This decision aligns with the principles established in key Supreme Court cases. Stay tuned for more updates on this legal case. #AnticipatoryBail #GujaratHighCourt #LegalCase
Facts
- Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waived service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.
- Learned advocate Mr. Arjunsingh Chauhan waived service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent-original complainant.
- The applicant filed an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR I-C.R. No.11210046240200 of 2024 at Puna Police Station, Surat.
Arguments
- Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed grant of anticipatory bail based on nature and gravity of the offence.
- Mr. Chauhan, advocate for the original complainant, also opposed bail for the applicant.
Analysis
- The relationship between the applicant and the complainant is consensual.
- The FIR against the applicant was filed under Section 376 of IPC.
- The applicant had initially filed a complaint against the complainant.
- The complaint by the complainant seems to be a repercussion of the applicant’s complaint.
- The complainant filed the complaint after almost five months of the applicant’s complaint.
- The Additional Public Prosecutor and the Advocate for the complainant failed to establish that the applicant committed the offense under section 376 of IPC with the complainant through coercion or force.
- The court, without delving into the evidence, is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
- The court considered the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. which reaffirmed the principles established in Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. case (1980) 2 SCC 665.
Decision
- The present application is allowed, and the rule is made absolute.
- Applicant is directed to be released on bail upon arrest, with specific conditions.
- Conditions include cooperation with the investigation, appearing at the Police Station on a specified date and time, refraining from influencing witnesses, not obstructing the investigation, maintaining the current address, and not leaving India without court permission.
- Applicant is directed to furnish personal bond and surety of Rs.10,000 each.
- Direct service is permitted, and the applicant is instructed to deposit the bond amount before the Trial Court within a week.
- The Trial Court is advised not to be influenced by prima facie observations by the High Court during bail granting.
Case Title: ABHISHEK PARAS KEDIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/CR.MA/6776/2024
