Rameshbhai Gangarambhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[r.v. raveendran; a. k. patnaik] indian penal code section 452 - house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint -- after investigation, the police filed two challans on 02.02.2006 before the judicial magistrate, first class, ludhiana. after further investigation, the superintendent of police, city-ii, ludhiana, submitted his report to the deputy inspector general of police, ludhiana range. the relevant portion of the report of the superintendent of police, city-ii, ludhiana, which contains his conclusions after further investigation, is extracted herein below: "i found during my investigation that mohan singh, son of shri sher singh , dharmatma singh, harpal singh, jagdev singh and bhupinder singh, sons of mohan singh, residents of pullanwal, sold one plot of 1 kanal 13 marlas on 09.03.2004 to bharpur sigh, harnek singh, sons of balbir singh, jagjit singh, son of amarjit singh, gurcharan singh, son of hari dass and jagdev singh, son of harpal singh, resident of phulanawal through registered sale deed vasikha no.23895 and the mutation no.10940 duly entered in the name of purchasing party. for deciding the issue, we must first refer to the provisions of section 173 of the cr.p.c. under which the police submits reports after investigation and after further investigation, section 190 of the cr. p.c. under which the magistrate takes cognizance of an offence upon a police report and section 482 of the cr.p.c. under which the high court exercises its powers to quash the criminal proceedings. report of police officer on completion of investigation. cognizance of offences by magistrate. sub-section (8) of section 173 further provides that where upon further investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall also forward to the magistrate a further report regarding such evidence and the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 173, cr.p.c., shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2). thus, the report under sub-section (2) of section 173 after the initial investigation as well as the further report under sub-section (8) of section 173 after further investigation constitute "police report" and have to be forwarded to the magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. r.p. kapur moved the punjab high court under section 561-a of the code of criminal procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated by the first information report. 1. heard mr.tejas satta, learned advocate for the applicant and mr.dabhi, learned app for respondent state.2. this application seeking regular bail under section 439 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 has been preferred by applicant in connection with the offence registered with mehsana city police station being m.case no.1 of 2011 for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 415, 416, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 114 and 120(b) of indian penal code.3. mr.satta, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that brother of the applicant viz. babubhai gangaram patel was co-purchaser of the plot in question, along with the present applicant. he submitted that the notice under section 135(d) of the bombay land revenue code was also issued and thereafter the transaction took place. it is submitted that since subsequently prices of the land have escalated, the complaint has been preferred. he has also submitted that applicant is bona fide purchaser. he has also referred to the sale-deed in support of his submission. he has referred to the order dated 11^th april, 2011 vide which the brother of the applicant has been granted anticipatory bail passed in criminal misc.application no.5013 of 2011. he, therefore, submitted that, on the ground of parity, the present applicant may also be released on bail.4. mr.dabhi, learned app has opposed the bail application and relied upon the statement of talati who submitted that applicant with an old lady had come and requested that the lady was the landlord, hence her signature on notice under section 135(d) of the code may be taken. thus, the applicant and other persons have tried to commit fraud with the landlord, and, therefore, present applicant may not be enlarged on bail.5. having heard the learned counsel for both the sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the documents and other material produced on record of this case, the gravity of the offence, the quantum of punishment, the allegations against the applicant, the manner in which the applicant is allegedly involved in the case as per the allegation of the prosecution, coupled with the fact that the co-accused has been released by this court vide order dated 11^th april, 2011, i am of the view that the applicant deserves to be released on bail.6. for the foregoing reasons, the application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be enlarged on regular bail in connection with m.case no.1 of 2011 registered at mehsana city police station on executing a bond of rs.15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court and subject to the conditions that he shall, [a] not take undue advantage of his liberty or abuse his liberty; [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;[c] maintain law and order;[d] not leave the state of gujarat without the prior permission of the sessions court concerned;[e] furnish the present address of his residence to the i.o. and also to the court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change his residence without prior permission of this court; [f] surrender his passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;[g] mark his presence at the concerned police station on 13^th may, 2011 and thereafter on any 1^st and 15^th day of english calender month between 9.00 am and 2.00 pm till the trial is over;7. the authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in any other offence for the time being.8. if breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the sessions judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or to take appropriate action in the matter.9. bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case.10. at the trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by the observations of prima facie nature, qua the evidence at this stage, made by this court while enlarging the petitioner on bail.11. rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. direct service is permitted.

Judgment:
1. Heard Mr.Tejas Satta, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr.Dabhi, learned APP for respondent State.

2. This application seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by applicant in connection with the offence registered with Mehsana City Police Station being M.Case No.1 of 2011 for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 415, 416, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 114 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code.

3. Mr.Satta, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that brother of the applicant viz. Babubhai Gangaram Patel was co-purchaser of the plot in question, along with the present applicant. He submitted that the notice under section 135(d) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code was also issued and thereafter the transaction took place. It is submitted that since subsequently prices of the land have escalated, the complaint has been preferred. He has also submitted that applicant is bona fide purchaser. He has also referred to the sale-deed in support of his submission. He has referred to the order dated 11^th April, 2011 vide which the brother of the applicant has been granted anticipatory bail passed in Criminal Misc.Application No.5013 of 2011. He, therefore, submitted that, on the ground of parity, the present applicant may also be released on bail.

4. Mr.Dabhi, learned APP has opposed the bail application and relied upon the statement of Talati who submitted that applicant with an old lady had come and requested that the lady was the landlord, hence her signature on notice under section 135(d) of the Code may be taken. Thus, the applicant and other persons have tried to commit fraud with the landlord, and, therefore, present applicant may not be enlarged on bail.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the documents and other material produced on record of this case, the gravity of the offence, the quantum of punishment, the allegations against the applicant, the manner in which the applicant is allegedly involved in the case as per the allegation of the prosecution, coupled with the fact that the co-accused has been released by this Court vide order dated 11^th April, 2011, I am of the view that the applicant deserves to be released on bail.

6. For the foregoing reasons, the application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be enlarged on regular bail in connection with M.Case No.1 of 2011 registered at Mehsana City Police Station on executing a bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall, [a] not take undue advantage of his liberty or abuse his liberty; [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

[c] maintain law and order;

[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without the prior permission of the Sessions Court concerned;

[e] furnish the present address of his residence to the I.O. And also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change his residence without prior permission of this Court; [f] surrender his passport, if any, to the lower Court within a week;

[g] mark his presence at the concerned Police Station on 13^th May, 2011 and thereafter on any 1^st and 15^th day of English calender month between 9.00 AM and 2.00 PM till the trial is over;

7. The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in any other offence for the time being.

8. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or to take appropriate action in the matter.

9. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case.

10. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of prima facie nature, qua the evidence at this stage, made by this Court while enlarging the petitioner on bail.

11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is permitted.