The necessity to arrest any accused and the provision of section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code which permits the Court to dispense with the personal presence of the accused even at the time of trial.

Rule. Service of rule is waived by Ms. Jhaveri, Ld. APP and Mr. Mankad, Ld. Advocate for respondent – State and the complainant respectively.

2. The petitioners are original accused with reference to Gadhshisha Police Station C.R.

No. II-3007 of 2014, which is lodged by the complainant on 15/4/2014 alleging that the

petitioners have given threat to kill him. Thereby offences under sections 504, 506[2] and

114 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] was registered against the present petitioners and they were arrested by the investigating agency on the same day and released on bail on furnishing personal bond and solvent surety of Rs.25,000/-, by order dated 16/4/2014 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandvi, Kutch on condition that they should not leave territory of India without prior permission of the Court and they should surrender their passports before the Court within three days. The petitioners were also directed to remain present before the Court during the trial.

3. Considering the condition to surrender passports as a harsh, the petitioners have filed an application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 143/2014 before the Sessions Court at Bhuj on 21/4/2014 contending that in fact, the FIR in question has been filed as a counter blast against the FIR filed by the present petitioner no. 2 on 12/4/2014 against the present complainant under sections 143, 323, 504, 506[2], 427 of the IPC before the same Gadhshisha Police Station, which is registered as C.R. No. I- 17/2014, for which the present complainant was arrested on 15/4/2014 and, therefore, on the date of such arrest, with the help of the police, the complainant has lodged such false complaint wherein there is no other evidence except bare words of the complainant that present petitioners have threatened him to kill.

4. It is further submitted that when the petitioner no. 2 herein has filed complaint, as aforesaid, against said Meghji Karsan Vekaria, since the petitioners are residing at Nairobi, Kenya [South Africa], such false complaint was filed immediately on his arrest, for which the petitioners were also arrested immediately and intention of the complainant was clear that if the petitioners are restrained from returning to Kenya, then and then they will compromise or may not press the complaint against him, which is under section 323 of the IPC i.e., resulting into injuries to respondent no. 2 herein.

5. It is further submitted that in fact the dispute is pertaining to the encroachment of the property owned by the present petitioners since both of them are neighbours and since the petitioners are not available in India forever, the complainant herein has encroached their property and when present petitioners objected such encroachment and illegal construction, the complainant has entered into quarrel with the petitioners and beaten the petitioner no. 2, namely, Tejbai Premji Rajani. In her complaint, she has disclosed the names of six persons as accused, which include present complainant Meghji Karsan Vekaria. Therefore, prima-facie there is substance in the version of the petitioners before the Sessions Court while praying for modification of the condition regarding surrender of passports and leaving Indian territory without prior permission of the Court.

The petitioners have produced copies of both the FIRs on record. Perusal of both the FIRs confirms the above story and surprisingly it confirms the incident alleged by both the sides and thereby presence of present complainant Meghji Karsan Vekaria at the place of the incident is practically admitted by him. It is also clear from the complaint being FIR registered at C.R. No. II – 3007/2014 against present petitioners that for the incident of 10/4/2014, such complaint was filed only on 15/4/2014 i.e., after arrest of the complainant with reference to the FIR lodged by the present petitioner no. 2 being C.R. No. I-17/2014 dated 12/4/2014. Therefore, prima-facie it becomes clear that the complaint agai