DAYABEN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed praying for cancellation of bail granted to the Respondent No.2 - accused herein vide an order dtd. 1/9/2022 in Criminal Misc. Application No.16037 of 2022 in an FIR filed at the instance of the present applicant bearing C.R.No.11186009220431 of 2022 registered with Veraval Police Station, District : Gir Somnath for the offences punishable under Ss. 376 , 504 , 507 , 114 , 506(2) and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It is alleged by the applicant that despite the Court imposed conditions (a) not to take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty and (b) not to act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution, Respondent No.2-accused committed breach thereof by threatening the applicant to settle the case filed against him or else, to face dire consequences. The said incident occurred on 12/9/2022 as asserted in the application filed praying for cancellation of bail granted in favour of Respondent No.2 before the Court of Sessions. In support of the said assertion made in the application, learned advocate for the applicant relied on a communication by Assistant Sub Inspector, Veraval Police Station addressed to the Executive Magistrate, Veraval initiating proceedings under Ss. 107 , 116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for a Chapter Case forwarding the Respondent No.2-accused for taking personal bond / bail bonds of good conduct. It is further submitted that since the applicant has committed breach of condition and has threatened the applicant, the applicant has interfered with the prosecution witnesses and therefore, bail granted to the Respondent No.2- accused be cancelled.

(3.) Having heard learned advocate for the applicant and going through the order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court releasing Respondent No.2 on bail as also considering the FIR and the proceedings initiated at the instance of the applicant, it reveals that Respondent No.2 herein is serving in Forest Department. It appears that some relative of the applicant - first informant committed forest offence and she had gone to the forest office where the Respondent No.2-accused is working and developed the relationship, exchanged the mobile numbers and thereafter seems to have filed an FIR for the offences, as aforesaid. As reflected from the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court dtd. 1/9/2022, Respondent No.2 - accused was in confinement since 30/7/2022. The assertion made in the application praying for cancellation of bail preferred before the Court of Sessions reflects about accused threatening her that he has not been kept for a day in the custody and despite two applications filed in the Police Station, nothing has been done against him. The said assertion in the application appears to be incorrect as referred to hereinabove. He was in confinement since 30/7/2022 and came to be released on bail vide an order dtd. 1/9/2022. It appears that pursuant to the order dtd. 1/9/2022, he might have been released from the prison either on 2/9/2022 or a day thereafter. Immediately, within few days thereafter, it is asserted that when she visited the forest office for the purpose of giving some application on 12/9/2022, Respondent No.2 -accused threatened her, as aforesaid. Though Respondent No.2 being proceeded against under a chapter case, on a proceedings addressed to the Executive Magistrate on 20/10/2022, requesting the Executive Magistrate to take the bonds from him for keeping peace, cannot be said to be proof of any threat being administered in absence of any cognizable offence, if at all committed by Respondent No.2-accused alleging breach of condition of an order of bail.