LexPRAVINBHAI KASHIRAMBHAI PATEL versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 8 S.C.R. 211 PRAVINBHAI KASHIRAMBHAI PATEL V. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1923 of 2010) JULY 8, 2010 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: A B s. 439(2) r!w s. 482 · - Cancellation of anticipatory bail - c HELD: Principles normally required for granting regular bail or anticipatory bail have to be applied according to facts and nuances of each case - Jn the instant case, there being different versions in three different complaints and a/legations with regard to certain offences sought to be added at a later 0 stage of investigation, no case has been made out for allowing application u/s 439(2) rlw s.482 . Three different complaints were made to police authorities with regard to incident stated to have taken place on 11.9.2008. In one complaint, it was alleged that E at the instance of respondent nos. 2 and 3 a mob illegally entered the property of the complainant and his family members, threatened to dispossess them and to kill them if they resisted. It was, thereafter, alleged that the mob returned within half an hour and caused injuries to the F complainant and his associates. In yet another complaint, allegations of snatching, theft of cash and ornaments and certain car accessories were also included. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 applied for and were granted anticipatory bail by the Court of Session. The petition filed before the High G Court u/ss 439(2) and 482 CrPC for cancellation of the anticipatory bail was dismissed. Aggrieved, one of the complainants filed the petition. 211 H 212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 8 S.C.R. A Dismissing the petition, the Court HELD: 1. The principles normally required to be followed while granting regular bail or anticipatory bail have to be applied according to the facts and circumstances of each case. Except for indicating the 6 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. [para 14] [218-G-H; 219-A] c State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi 2005 Suppl. (3) SCR 454 = (2005) 8 sec 21 - relied on. Pu ran vs. Rambilas & Anr. 2001 ( 3 ) SCR 432 = (2001) D 6 SCC 338; Superintendent of Police, CBI & Ors. vs. Tapan Kumar Singh 2003 (3) SCR 485 = (2003) 6 SCC 175; Animireddy Venkata Ramana & Ors. vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 2008 (3) SCR 1078 = (2008) 5 SCC 368; State rep. by the C.B.I. vs. Anil Sharma 1997 Suppl. (3) SCR 737 = (1997) 7 SCC 187; and Anil Kumar E Tulsiyani vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 2006 Suppl. (1) SCR 923 = (2006) 9 sec 425 - referred to. 1.2 In the instant case, on account of the different versions noticed in the three different complaints made F in respect of the incident of 11.9.2008, and having regard to the fact that allegations with regard to offences punishable u/ss 395, 397, 467, 468 and. 471 l.P.C. were sought to be added at a later stage of investigation, no case has been made out for allowing the petitioner's G application u/s 439(2) read with s.482 Cr.P.C. [para 15] [219-B-C] Case Law Reference: 2001 (3) SCR 432 referred to para 7 H PRAVINBHAI KASHIRAMBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF 213 GUJARAT & ORS. 2003 (3) SCR485 referred to para 8 2008 (3) SCR 1078 referred to para 9 1997 Suppl. 3 SCR 737 referred to para 10 2006 Suppl. 1 SCR 923 referred to para 10 · 2005 Suppl. 3 SCR 454 relied on para 14 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (CRIMINAL) No.1923 of 20110 A B From the Judgment & Order dated 18.02.201 O of the High C Court of Gujarat at Ahemedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12865 of 2009. Yatin N. Oza, 8. B. Naik, S. Udaya Ku:nar Sagar, Bina Madhavan, Roma I. Fidelis, Shwetank Sailakwal (for Lawyer's D Knit & Co.) for the Petitioner. Jaideep Gupta, D.N. Ray, Parthiv Shah, Lokesh K. Choudhary, Pradhuman Gohil, Sumita Ray, Hemantika Wahi, Jesal for the Respondents. E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. In connection with an incident which is said to have occurred on 11th September, 2008 at . about 11.00 a.m. and continued even thereafter, a complaint F was made at about 5.30 p.m. to the Police Inspector, Anand Police Station, by one Patel Bipin Dahyabhai and three others .. In the said complaint it was alleged that on.the said date at 11.0
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.