( 1 ) RULE. Mr. S. R. Divetia learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the opponent. State waives service of the Rule. Heard Mr. M. V. Solanki learned Advocate for the applicant- accused and Mr. Divetia learned Addl. P. P. for the State

( 2 ) BRIEFLY speaking it was a prosecution case that on 27/04/1989 Smt. Manjulaben Chandulal Ahya lodged a complaint at Jamnagar City Police Station B Division against one Mahipatsinh Panchaji Jadeja - the applicant-accused herein alleging that her daughter Rajeshvari Chandulal Ahya was missing since 21/04/1989 and that she had a suspicion of being adbucted by the present applicant-accused. On the basis of this fact the police registered the complaint against the accused. the same being FIR No. 1 of 1989 for the offence punishable under Secs. 363 and 366 of I. P. C. Thereafter after a long time the accused came to be arrested on 7/12/1989 by the police and on 8/12/1989 he submitted a bail application before the learned Sessions Judge same being M. C. A. No. 472 of 1989 which ultimately dismissed by an order dated 15/12/1989

( 3 ) EARLIER when this matter came up for admission before this Court (Coram: J. U. Mehta J. on 5 990 the learned Advocate for the applicant-accused Mr. M. V. Solanki had tendered two sworn affidavit that of (i) Smt. Manjulaben Chandulal Ahya (complainant) (ii) Rajeshvari daughter of the complainant which were ordered to be kept on the record. The matter was thereafter stand-over today i. e. 8/01/1990

( 4 ) TODAY on matter being called out Mr. Solanki has made following two submissions; (1) That the aforesaid two affidavits not only completely white- wash the allegation of the abduction of Rajeshvari by the accused Mahipatsinh but the same also cut at the very root of the prosecution case giving thereby the clean-bill of innocence to the accused 50 as to entitle him to be released on bail. (2) That the aforesaid two affidavit are needed to be accepted by this Court as the deponents of the said two affidavit were present before the Court to lead added assurance and strength to the voluntary truthful and genuine nature of the same. As per this submissions according to Mr. Solanki the accused deserves to be released on bail.

( 5 ) I have carefully perused the aforesaid two affidavits a bare reading of which prima facie does give an impression that the deponents of the said affidavit two are important prosecution witnesses) do not appear to be any more in any mood either to prosecute try and/or to get convicted and punished the accused for alleged offences. But at the same time it is also too difficult to conclusively hold that whatever stated in the said two affidavit is gospel truth. Under such circumstances the question of importance that arises for the consideration is whether it would be just legal and proper to straightway accept and rely upon unverified affidavit of two prosecution witnesses at its face value which have been further sought to be supported by keeping two deponents of the said affidavits present before the Court short-circuiting the ordinarily procedure by keeping the investigating agency out of the picture to have any say in the matter ?

( 6 ) NOW regarding the question raised hereinabove at the very outset it can safely be held without slightest hesitation that merely because the accused has tendered duly sworned affidavits of the prosecution witnesses by keeping the deponents of the same present before the Court that by themselves cannot be presumed or permitted to have any direct and binding effect to the prejudice of the prosecution till the time the investigating agency bad a fair and reasonable opportunity to verify and inquire into the genuineness truthfulness and the voluntary character of the same and submit its report for the consideration of the Court taking up the matter. It is very clear that neither this Court nor any Court can ever be expected to assume and/or usurp the role and jurisdiction of the investigating agency which has an in