Pravinbhai Kashirambhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat & Ors

and arms, illegally entered into Nidhwad Survey

No.66, which the complainant contended belonging to

h im and his family members, and threatened to

dispossess them by force from the said land and

even held out threats to kill the complainant and

his family members if they resisted.

2. From the contents of the complaint itself it is

clear that immediately after the said incident the

petitioner tried to lodge a complaint with the

Police Inspector of Anand Police Station, but such

complaint was not registered and within half an

hour thereafter the mob came back and assaulted the

complainant and his associates with sticks and

scythes and caused serious injuries to the

petitioner herein and some of his other associates 3

who had to be taken to the Anand Suvidha Hospital

for treatment. In the written complaint it was

mentioned that besides causing serious injuries to

the complainant and his group, the Respondent No.2

and his associates caused damage to the vehicles

belonging to the petitioner. Since the complaint

was not registered, the petitioner and his

associates were said to have gone to the Office of

the D.S.P., where they were informed that the said

Officer was not available and, ultimately, the

written complaint was made, in which another

incident allegedly involving the snatching and

theft of cash and ornaments from one Manishbhai

Patel and certain other car accessories, was also

included.

3. After the said written complaint had been made,

a First Information Report was also recorded at the

instance of the petitioner herein by the P.S.O.,

Sanand District, Ahmedabad (Rural), on 11th 4

September, 2008, at 10.15 p.m. at V.S. Hospital,

where the complainant had been referred for

treatment. In the First Information Report it was

stated by the petitioner that when the mob of 30 to

40 persons rushed towards the informant and his

brother and nephew, the Respondent No.2 and his

son, Lalitbhai Babubhai Patel, were standing on the

road beside their car and with the help of signs

they are alleged to have directed the attackers to

assault the petitioner and his family members.

According to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, there is

yet another version of the incident contained in a

letter addressed by the petitioner and others to

the Director General of Police, Gujarat, wherein it

was shown that the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were

present at Village Nighrad at the time of the

alleged offence and after having directed as to how

the entire operation was to be carried out, they

left the place. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3

thereafter applied for anticipatory bail and the 5

same was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

Fast Track Court No.1, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur,

by his order dated 11th November, 2009. While

granting the prayer of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3

for grant of anticipatory bail, the learned trial

court imposed various conditions to ensure that the

investigation was not compromised in any way or

that the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 cooperated with the

investigation.

4. The said order allowing the prayer of the

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 for grant of anticipatory

bail was thereafter challenged by the petitioner

herein before the High Court. The High Court, upon

considering the material available and after

considering the various decisions of this Court

laying down the parameters for grant of

anticipatory bail, dismissed the petitioner's

application under sections 439(2) and 482 of the

Criminal Procedure Code for setting aside the order 6

dated 11th November, 2009, passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge and to cancel the

anticipatory bail granted to the Respondent Nos.2

and 3 herein.

5. This Special Leave Petition has been filed by

the complainant being dissatisfied with the

aforesaid order of the High Court upholding the

order of the trial court granting anticipatory bail

to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in connection with

the F.I.R. dated 11th September, 2008.

6. Extensive submissions were made by Mr. Yatin N.

Ojha, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the

petitioner, in support of his contentions that not

only had the trial court erred in granting

anticipatory bail to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3,

but that the High Court had also erred in

confirming the order of the learned Additional

Sessions Judge. Mr. Ojha submitted that in the

facts and circumstances of the case, the 7

anticipatory bail granted to the Respondent Nos.2

and 3, in connection with the complaint filed by

the petitioner, was liable to be set aside. Mr.

Ojha urged that when such serious charges in

respect of offences alleged to have been committed

under Sections 395, 397, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C.

had been made against the Respondent Nos.2 and 3

and their associates, the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, having regard to the gravity of the

offence, ought not to have allowed the prayer of

the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 for grant of

anticipatory bail.

7. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Mr.

Ojha firstly referred to the decision of this Court

in Puran vs. Rambilas & Anr. [(2001) 6 SCC 338], in

which the grounds for cancellation of bail under

Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. fell for consideration and

it was held that an order granting bail, by

ignoring material and evidence on record and 8

without giving reasons, would be perverse and

contrary to principles of law and such an order

would itself provide a ground for moving an

application for cancellation of bail. It was

further observed that such ground for cancellation

of bail would be different from the ground that the

accused had misconducted himself or that some new

facts called for cancellation of bail.

8. Mr. Ojha then referred to the decision of this

Court in Superintendent of Police, CBI & Ors. vs.

Tapan Kumar Singh [(2003) 6 SCC 175] in support of

his submissions that there was no compulsion that

all facts and details relating to the offence are

to be included in the F.I.R. This Court observed

that the information given must disclose the

commission of a cognizable offence and must provide

a basis for the Police Officer to suspect the

commission of such an offence. Mr. Ojha submitted

that in the instant case certain information was 9

provided in the F.I.R. which was subsequently

supplemented by addition of other charges upon

further investigation into the complaint.

9. Mr. Ojha submitted that the said view was

subsequently reiterated by this Court in various

cases and as recently as in the case of Animireddy

Venkata Ramana & Ors. vs. Public Prosecutor, High

Court of Andhra Pradesh [(2008) 5 SCC 368], wherein

it was reiterated that since in the F.I.R. the

accused persons have been named and overt acts on

their part have also been mentioned, it was not

necessary that each and every detail of the

incident was to be stated. It was further observed

that a First Information Report is not meant to be

encyclopaedic.

10. Mr. Ojha submitted that the grant of

anticipatory bail to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 was

in violation of the principles laid down by this

Court in State rep. by the C.B.I. vs. Anil Sharma 10

[(1997) 7 SCC 187], in which the factors to be

considered in exercise of the discretionary power

were considered. The said case involved a member

of the Legislative Assembly of the State of

Himachal Pradesh, who was also a Minister of the

Himachal Pradesh State Government for three years

and was the son of a former Union Minister. It was

held that in appropriate cases anticipatory bail

should not be granted to persons holding high

positions and/or wielding considerable influence

and that the investigating agencies would be better

placed to elicit more useful information and

material during custodial interrogation and that

the High Court had erred in ignoring the

apprehension expressed by C.B.I. that considering

the high office held by the applicant and wide

influence that he could wield, the C.B.I. would be

subjected to a great handicap in the interrogation

process in case of grant of pre-arrest bail.

Reference was also made to the decision of this 11

Court in Anil Kumar Tulsiyani vs. State of U.P. &

Anr. [(2006) 9 SCC 425], wherein it was indicated

that among the relevant considerations for grant of

bail in respect of non-bailable offences, was the

gravity and the nature of the offence. Mr. Ojha

urged that the decision in the said case was

clearly attracted to the facts of the instant case,

having regard to the gravity of the offences

complained of against the Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

11. Mr. Ojha submitted that whether the Respondent

Nos.2 and 3 have abused the privilege of

anticipatory bail or not was not the only

consideration for exercise of power under Section

439(2) Cr.P.C., what was equally important was the

correctness of the manner in which the respondents

had been admitted to bail by the trial court. Mr.

Ojha urged that having regard to the gravity of the

offences alleged, both the Additional Sessions

Judge as well as the High Court had erred in 12

granting anticipatory bail to the Respondent Nos.2

and 3 and the said orders were liable to be set

aside.

12. Appearing for the State of Gujarat, Ms.

Hemantika Wahi supported the case of the petitioner

and contended that notwithstanding the fact that

the investigation had been completed, custodial

interrogation of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 was still

required in order to elicit further evidence in

connection with the case.

13. On behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 it was

submitted that it is only after considering the

various materials available on record in respect of

the purported incident the prayer of the said

respondents for grant of anticipatory bail was

allowed. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior

Advocate appearing with Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned

Senior Advocate, who had commenced the submissions

on behalf of the said respondents, urged that 13

except for the statement made on behalf of the

State of Gujarat that custodial interrogation of

the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 was necessary in

connection with the investigation into the

complaint made by the petitioner, no other case has

been made out for cancellation of such bail.

14. The decisions cited by Mr. Ojha in support of

his contentions, lay down the principles, which are

normally required to be followed while granting

regular bail or anticipatory bail, but the same

have to be applied according to the facts and

circumstances of each case. Except for indicating

the broad outlines for grant of bail and/or

anticipatory bail, no strait-jacket formula can be

prescribed for universal application, as each case

for grant of bail has to be considered on its own

merits and in the facts and nuances of each case.

In fact, the principles laid down by this Court in

State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 14

21], broadly covers the matters to be considered in

an application for grant of bail, but even then the

same may not fully cover the fact situation of each

case.

14. In the instant case, on account of the

different versions noticed in the three different

complaints made in respect of the incident of 11th

September, 2008, and having regard to the fact that

allegations with regard to offences under Sections

395, 397, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. were sought to be

added at a later stage of investigation, no case

has been made out for allowing the petitioner's

application under Section 439(2) read with Section

482 Cr.P.C.

15. Accordingly, while dismissing the Special Leave

Petition, filed by Pravinbhai Kashirambhai Patel,

we also make it clear that any observation made in

this order shall be deemed to have been made only 15

for the purposes of disposing of the Special Leave

Petition and not for any other purpose.

16. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed

accordingly.

________________J.

(ALTAMAS KABIR)

________________J.

(CYRIAC JOSEPH) New Delhi Dated: 8th July, 2010.

16