RUPSINGBHAI TERSINGBHAI RATHWA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Pravin Gondaliya, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. K.P. Rawal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State.

(2.) By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered at C.R. No.I­26 of 2015 with Rangpur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 397, 333, 353 and 120(B) of the IPC.

(3.) Mr. Pravin Gondaliya, learned advocate for the applicant has taken this Court through the allegations levelled in the FIR and has submitted that the applicant has wrongly been involved in the offence. It is submitted that even in the affidavit filed before the learned Sessions Judge, it is stated that iron pipe blows have been attributed. It is further submitted that considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in [2011] 1 SCC 6941, no custodial interrogation is necessary. It is further submitted that the allegations under Sections 397 and 120(B) of the IPC have been added to show seriousness in the alleged FIR and because of the fact that the applicant is involved in other offence under the Bombay Prohibition Act, name of the applicant has been added. It is, however, submitted that the applicant is enlarged on bail in all such offences. Considering the above, the present applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice.