NANDKISHORE HASMUKHLAL MISTRY Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Learned counsel as well as learned A.P.P. Mr.Dipen Desai, appearing for the respondents, waive service.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged, under the provisions of Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Sthe Code ), order dated 21.08.2007 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Criminal Misc. Application No.934 of 2007 granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code to respondent No.2 herein on condition, inter alia, of reporting before P.S.O. of Vadi Police Station on or before 27.08.2007. It was submitted by learned counsel Mr.Arpit A. Kapadia, appearing for the petitioner, that in view of the alleged role played by the respondent concerned, he ought not to have been granted anticipatory bail and the prima facie conclusion in the impugned order that the respondent did not appear to have been involved in serious offence of cheating was erroneous. It is stated in the petition that the respondent had not made himself available before Vadi Police Station on or before 27.08.2007 and hence the condition for grant of anticipatory bail was already violated.

(3.) It was submitted, on instructions, by learned A.P.P. Mr.Dipen Desai that the respondent had reported to the police station on or before 27.08.2007 but had not approached the officer concerned. It is stated on oath by filing an affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2 that the respondent had, in fact, not only reported on 25.08.2007 but made written report to the police station officer of Vadi Police Station about his presence pursuant to the impugned order.