Anticipatory bail should be denied in serious cases where custodial interrogation is essential for justice and the safety of the victim is at risk.

ORDER :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent – State and learned Advocate Mr. Dipen Chowdhary waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents No.2 to 11.

2. By way of this application, the applicant – victim has made a prayer for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondents No.2 to 11 on 21.03.2024 by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha-Deodar in Criminal Miscellaneous No.72 of 2024 qua the First Information Report (FIR) registered on 13.02.2024 as C.R. No.11195050240083 with Tharad Police Station, Banaskantha for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 366, 342, 343, 354(A), 323, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

3. Learned Advocate for the applicant Mr. V.C. Vaghela submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to consider the gravity of the offence and arbitrarily and without any application of mind has granted anticipatory bail on the grounds that the sections invoked in the FIR does not provide for life imprisonment and death sentence and the maximum sentence which can be imposed is 10 years. It is further that this consideration cannot be basis for granting anticipatory bail where the facts of the case suggest that custodial interrogation would be necessary. The applicant-victim and her husband were continuously tortured and harassed by the accused and there is danger to the life and liberty of the applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant has given the details of the tortures and physical harassment meted at the hands of the accused individually.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. V.C. Vaghela submitted that the applicant’s husband – Pintu Raychandji Mali had filed a Special Criminal Application No.8217 of 2023 before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, praying the Court to issue direction to the respondent No.2, i.e. Police Inspector, Tharad Police Station to produce Alkaben, his wife before the Court. In support of his case, Pintu Mali had submitted that he had married the Corpus on 05.05.2023 at Jahu Mata Mandir, Near Court, Patan, Taluka, District Patan and thereafter, they had stayed together at different places; and they went to Jaipur early morning on 06.05.2023 purchased certain articles, check out from the Hotel at Jaipur on 08.05.2023 and they came to Patan as they decided to surrender themselves before the Police Station, under whose jurisdiction they had married.

5. It was also stated before the Co-ordinate Bench that after recording of the statement, both went to Radhanpur and they stayed together till 25.05.023 by taking on rent a room owned by one Chinukaka, near APMC Market Yard, Radhanpur. It was further claimed that during their stay at Radhanpur, the family members of present applicant threatened the couple with dire consequences and therefore, the applicant gave an application on 17.05.2023 to Tharad Police Station. Pintu Raychandji Mali gave an application to the Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha at Palanpur as also the PSI, Deodar Police Station. It was the case of Pintu Mali that on 24.06.2023, when he and the applicant herein visited Deodar for some social work, the in-laws quarreled with Pintu Mali and abducted the applicant herein. It was further submitted that though Pintu Mali tried to rescue his wife, he was thrashed and his in-laws went away with the applicant. It was further submitted that the in-laws took away one of the mobile phones of the applicant, as she was having two mobiles. With another mobile, Pintu Mali would talk with his wife and it is submitted that the applicant was beaten, given fist blows, beaten with a belt and she was compelled to get a divorce from Pintu Mali. It was further submitted that the applicant herein was illegally confined.

6. In the proceedings of Special Criminal Application No.8217 of 2023, an Affidavit dated 17.07.2023 was produced on record on behalf of the respondents therein statin