YUSUF @ ISHA UMARBHAI SUBHANIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP Shri Kodekar for respondent State on advance copy. Learned counsel for the parties have requested for final disposal of the matter as the controversy is in narrow compass. Hence, Rule. Mr. Kodekar, learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent State. By consent, Rule is fixed forthwith.

(2.) THE petitioner, who has been named as accused in FIR being CR. No. II-16 of 2013 with Salaya (Marine) Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 25(1B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act and also under Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act, has approached this Court with following prayers :

(3.) LEARNED advocate appearing for the petitioner has invited this Court's attention to the remand application and FIR as well as the opposition to remand and contended that the development of entire event would not inspire any confidence qua its genuineness and these were the ground which weighed with the Court and hence anticipatory bail is also made available to him. Ofcourse where condition is imposed giving liberty to the prosecution for seeking remand in case of requirement but that itself is not to be construed as ground for seeking remand. The petitioner's counsel, under the instructions of his client, has submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to make himself available to the Investigating Officer as and when called, where he can be interrogated and he be not considered as in 'custody' as he is otherwise also under an obligation to cooperate in the investigation as per the order of the anticipatory bail.