KADARSHA LATIFSHA SAIYED Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent - State.

(2.) By way of this application filed under Sec. 379 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to in short as 'Cr.P.C.'), the challenge is made to the legality and validity of the order dtd. 7/6/2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandvi, Kutch in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.166 of 2024 whereby the application preferred by the respondent authority under Sec. 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. came to be allowed and the regular bail granted in favour of the applicant was cancelled. Further, the applicant alongwith the other co-accused were ordered to be taken into custody and an amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 deposited as per the suspension of condition for a limited period was ordered to be forfeited. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the applicant has come in this Criminal Revision Application contending the impugned order passed is unjust, improper and against the settled legal position of law.

(3.) As per the facts of the case, an First Information Report (FIR) came to be filed with Mandvi Police Station as 'A' Part C.R. No.190 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Ss. 365, 341, 323, 506(2), 120B and 188 of the Indian Penal Code, which was lodged on 10/5/2024 for the incident alleged to have occurred on the same day. As per the complainant, two days prior to the FIR, there was some grievance with regard to the running of a political party and therefore, an altercation had taken place and the FIR came to be filed alleging the injuries caused on account of the altercation. It is further submitted that the applicant was granted bail vide an order dtd. 24/5/2024 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandvi, Kutch in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.166 of 2024, and one of the conditions for bail was that till the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant was to mark his presence at the concerned Police Station, every first and 16th day of the month between 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. It is further submitted that a Report was filed by the Investigating Officer alleging breach of the conditions of bail on 1/6/2024; urging that the present applicant failed to mark his presence as per the order of the Court. It is further submitted that a reply was filed by the applicant before the learned Court stating that the applicant is a Scholar of Muslim Community and since there was a death of one - Nograni Kursumbai on 1/6/2024, the applicant had to attend the last rituals and because of that, the applicant could not mark his presence between 11.00 hours to 14.00 hours, but on the very same day, at 17.00 hours, the applicant had remained present before the Investigating Officer but since the other accused were not present, the Agency had asked the applicant to come with the other co- accused and by the time, they appeared before the Investigating Officer, it was conveyed to them that the time to report is over and accordingly, their presence was not actually marked.