Judgment:
ORDER
S:
1. The petitions succeed and they are hereby allowed.
2. It is hereby ordered and directed that, in case of the arrest of the petitioners in connection with C.R. No. 290 of 1992 of Rajkot City 'C' Division Police Station, for the alleged commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, each of the petitioners-accused shall be released on bail in sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand each only) and the P.B. of like amount.
3. The petitioners shall report to Rajkot City 'C' Division Police Station on 11-7-1992 at about 5-00 p.m. for the purpose of interrogation by the Investigating Officer, and thereafter, shall continue to make themselves available to the Investigating Officer for further interrogation as required, and shall co-operate with the Investigation Officer in the investigation.
4. It would be open to the Investigation Officer to file the application for remand if he considers it proper, and if the same is so filed, the concerned learned Magistrate shall decide the application for remand on merits and according to law.
5. The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.
6. The petitioners shall not leave India without (he prior permission of the Sessions Court at Rajkot.
7. The petitioners shall surrender their passports if any forthwith to the Investigating Officer and shall not apply for duplicate or fresh passport till the trial against them is over.
8. After the interrogation is over, Dr. (Mrs.) Nita Mehta shall normally stay at her residence at Bombay, while petitioner-Mahendra Vora after the interrogation is over shall not enter within the City limits of Rajkot without having obtained the prior permission of the Sessions Court, Rajkot. He shall supply his new residential address forthwith to the Investigating Officer and shall report to the Nearest Police Station on every Monday during morning hours between 10-00 a.m. to 12-00 noon till the investigation is over.
9. All of the above said conditions shall be treated as conditions on which bail is granted. These orders will hold good if the petitioners are arrested at any time within 90 days from today. The order for release on bail will remain operative only for a period of ten days from the date of their arrest. Thereafter, it will be open to petitioners to make a fresh application for being enlarged on bail which when it comes before the competent Court will be disposed of in accordance with law, having regard to all the attendant circumstances and the material available at the relevant time uninfluenced by the fact that anticipatory bail was granted.
10. A copy of the operative portion of these orders be transmitted to the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay. Rule made absolute. D.S. permitted.
21. After the above said orders have been dictated the learned P.P. Mr. Trivedi has urged that during the course of the abovesaid orders, two canvassed contentions have not been dealt with. The first contention is that the Court below has rejected the orders of anticipatory bail on the ground that there is a prima facie case against them and that, in light of the above said clear findings there is no reason for this Court to come to a different conclusion. But as noticed above the entire material has been examined by this Court and no other view is possible. The second contention raised by Mr. Trivedi is that the petitioners are absconding and that, affidavits in support of the petition have not been filed. The filing of the affidavits has been dispensed with. It is a fact that the petitioners have not been arrested so far. It was, time and again urged on behalf of the petitioners that they be allowed to appear before this Court or at the Police Station, provided the State agrees not to arrest them till the hearing of these petitions is concluded. They have also prayed for interim protection. Both these prayers came to be combated by the learned P.P. Now therefore, the State cannot urge that the present petitions be rejected on the ground that the petitioners are absconding. At any rate, non-filing of the affidavit and being not available to the Police uptill now do not constitute an unsurmountable obstacle in the way of the petitioners.
Lastly it may be noticed that either in case of dismissal or allowing of these two petitions the learned Advocates for the petitioners and the learned P.P. have asked for reasoned orders.