RAMESHBHAI @ RAJUBHAI SOMABHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS
LAWS(GJH)-2014-8-286
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on August 28,2014

Rameshbhai @ Rajubhai Somabhai Parmar Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Gujarat And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) APPLICANT - plaintiff has in para 7(b) of this application prayed as under : "(b) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to cancel the bail granted to the respondent No.2 to 5 for the ground of breach of conditions imposed by the Hon'ble Court while granting bail in connection with the F.I.R. being I Cr. No. 136/2012 registered with Meghaninagar Police Station, Ahmedabad."
(2.) PURSUANT to First Information Report under reference which is filed by the present applicant on 05.07.2012 for the offences under Section 498A, 306, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which registered against respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Respondent No.2 is husband of the victim, respondent No.3 is mother - in - law of the victim and thereby mother of the respondent No.2, whereas respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are sisters of respondent No.2 and thereby sisters - in - law of the victim. Sum and substance of the complaint is to the effect that during married life of 4 to 5 years, respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have claimed dowry and tortured the victim, sisters of the applicant complainant dragged her out of their house by snatching away the minor child and thereafter visited the maternal house of the victim and demanded dowry. Because of such ill -treatment, victim has repeatedly asked the applicant to obey and to fulfill the demands of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and ultimately when respondents had demanded dowry by visiting her maternal house, she has no option but to commit the suicide. In the complaint itself, it is stated that nobody was present at the house when incident of suicide was occurred. It is only when somebody has informed the applicant that his house is closed, he came to the house and broke open the door when he found that his sister/victim has committed suicide.
(3.) THOUGH minute scrutiny of evidence is not warranted at such stage, proper consideration of allegation in First Information Report is must. Question is regarding liberty of the person. Based upon such allegation in the First Information Report, all the accused have preferred bail applications as and when it was comfortable to them and in turn respondent No.2 has preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 17093 of 2012 before this Court wherein coordinate bench (Coram: A. S. Dave, J.) has granted bail to the respondent No.2 husband by an order dated 13.12.2012. Whereas, respondent No.3, mother of respondent No.2 and mother in law of the victim has preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 2639 of 2012 before the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail which was also allowed by the City Sessions Court No.23, Ahmedabad vide its judgment and order dated 14.08.2012. While respondent No.4 and 5 have preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 11181 of 2012 before this High Court wherein another co -ordinate bench (Coram: S. G. Gokani, J.) has granted bail vide order dated 06.08.2012. Therefore, there are in all three different orders of bail in favour of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and 5 by different Courts. 3.1 Therefore, practically it would be appropriate for the applicant to file separate application or at least disclose properly in such application for cancellation of bail whereby pursuant to Circular No. Judicial/08/2010 dated 16.07.2010, in fact cancellation of bail of respondent No.2 as well as 4 and 5 can be entertained by the same Court which has granted such bail and not by this Court. 3.2 Even after disclosing such position at bar, applicant has failed to bifurcate this application and to disclose properly for considering this application only for respondent No.3 who was released on anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court, considering the roster of business assigned to this Court. 3.3 Therefore, practically this application needs to be dismissed so far as respondent No.2 and 4 and 5 are concerned since application for cancellation of bail against them cannot be dealt with by this Court. In view of such facts and circumstances, now this application remains for consideration of merits only for cancellation of bail of Jashiben in whose favour the Sessions Court has passed an order of bail as recorded herein above.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.