NAVINKUMAR HARGOVINDBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed with following prayers:-

(2.) By the aforesaid impugned order, respondent No.2, who is the original accused No.2, has been enlarged on anticipatory bail in connection with offence being I-CR No.250 of 2017 registered with Khatodara Police Station for offences under Ss. 406 , 420 , 465 , 467 , 468 , 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant at the outset submitted that the basic case of the applicant is to challenge the impugned order for quashing and setting aside, but may not be for the purpose of cancelling the bail and to substantiate his ground to quash the order, he submitted that the Sessions Court has recorded contradictory stand of learned APP appearing before the Sessions Court. He drew attention of this Court to the impugned order, particularly to paras-6 and 8 stating that the learned APP had submitted that custodial interrogation of respondent No.2 herein /accused is necessary and hence, the Sessions Court in para-8 has recorded that say of learned APP is that if the applicants /accused are ready to cooperate in the investigation, their physical presence in the police custody is not to be necessary.....". It is this recording of two contradictory facts, has made the order venerable.