MANISHABEN KAMLESHBHAI MEHTA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application is preferred by the original complainant -victim, challenging the judgment and order dated 18.05.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.16 of Ahmedabad City Sessions Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1626 of 2013. By such impugned order, Sessions Court has allowed the application for anticipatory bail preferred by the respondent No.2 pursuant to offences registered against him under Sections 506 (2) and 376 of the Indian Penal Code with D.C.B. Police Station vide C.R.No. II - 3009 of 2001. Such impugned order is with several conditions viz; marking presence on specific dates before the concerned Police Station, depositing original passport before the Investigating Officer, not to leave limits of State of Gujarat, furnishing residential address to the I.O. and to intimate the change in address to the concerned I.O. with other regular conditions as provided under the statue for bail, but with a further specific condition that it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply for police remand stating that for the purpose accused shall be considered in the judicial custody and making it clear that the Magistrate shall consider such an application in accordance with law.

(2.) THE impugned order is also challenged by the State in Criminal Misc. Application No. 15929 of 2013 for cancellation of bail of the same person, therefore, both the applications are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) IT seems that complainant has to run a marathon race for her grievances which continued for last 14 years and, therefore, there is voluminous record of investigation as well as different proceedings before different Courts. However, the most important fact is to the effect that though petitioner has disclosed the commission of an offence on 29.05.2001, the complaint under Section 376 has been registered only after directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to submit final report in four weeks, by judgment and order dated 04.02.2013 in SLP(Cr.) No.636 of 2013. Therefore, though the offence is before the year 2001 and though the first complaint filed in the year 2001, at present it cannot be said that now because of passage of time i.e. more than a decade, there is no substance in such application seeking cancellation of bail. Otherwise also the fact is simple that the bail is first time granted by impugned judgment and order dated 18.05.2013 against charges under Section 376 because such charge is added in pending case, since police did not bother to add such charges for long time. I have perused the entire record of the present proceeding and entire record of the police investigation for all these 13 years. From perusal of such bulky record, though some facts may not be relevant at present, it would be appropriate to recollect the following details: -