HIRENKUMAR LABHSHANKARBHAI MEHTA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11190005220078 of 2022 dtd. 14/2/2022 registered with Paliyad Police Station, District Botad for the offences punishable under Ss. 364A, 387, 506(2), 143, 147, 148, 149 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec. 25(1-b)(a) of the Arms Act.

(2.) Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and the applicant has been falsely enroped in the offence. Present complainant is son of retired high ranking police officer and he is having checkered history and is known for fabricating documents and even during the pendency of the present application, present applicant has joined the investigation and from day one, the applicant is protected by the coordinate Bench by way of an interim order. The applicant has appeared before the investigating agency more than thrice. Further, even if the contents of the complaint are taken at its face value, same appears to be hypothetical as it is next to impossible that in presence of high ranking government officials and that too in broad day light the victim can be kidnapped and that too from a circuit house. Hence, now nothing remains to be recovered or discovered from the present applicant and therefore, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant, who is a government servant serving as Police Constable, cannot flee from justice and will be available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent ' State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. She has submitted that present applicant is police official and under the garb of his duty, he has tried to recover the personal amount by kidnapping the victim. She has further submitted that merely because the complainant has a checkered history cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. Further, considering the statement of co-accused, prima facie involvement of the applicant is there. Further, there is money transaction and amount is also transferred and hence, as custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, she has requested to dismiss the present application.