Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

HITESH UMESHBHAI MASHRU versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Decided
17 February 2025
Judges listed
BELA M. TRIVEDI, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 205 · 2025 INSC 246

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 206

2

The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 23.08.2024, passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in R/ Criminal Misc. Application (for successive anticipatory bail) No. 16462 of 2024, whereby the High Court had rejected the said application, filed by the present appellant, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the F.I.R. No. 11203024220505 dated 16.07.2022, registered at Police Station-B-Division, District-Junagadh, for the offence punishable under Sections-493 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

p. 206

3

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.

p. 206

4

It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel, Mr. Virat Popat, appearing for the appellant, that the appellant had married the prosecutrix (respondent no.2) at the age of 47 years, and it was the third marriage of both the parties i.e. the appellant and the prosecutrix. He further submitted that the appellant has joined the investigation after he was granted protection against his arrest by this Court vide the order dated 01.10.2024.

p. 206

5

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, relying upon the additional affidavit filed by the Investigating officer, submitted that the investigation is over, and as per his instructions, the charge-sheet has already been filed in the case.

p. 206

6

Learned counsel, Ms. Aastha Mehta, appearing for respondent no.2 (prosecutrix), however, has objected to the granting of the anticipatory bail to the appellant by submitting that the appellant had cheated the respondent no.2 (prosecutrix) under the pretext of marriage. She further submitted that their marriage was also not registered, however they had married as per their customs.

p. 206

7

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and to the fact that now the charge-sheet has already been filed but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are inclined to accept the present appeal.

p. 206

8

Hence, it is directed that in the event of the arrest of the appellant, in connection with the F.I.R. No. 11203024220505 dated 16.07.2022, registered at Police Station-B-Division, District-Junagadh, he shall be released on bail, if not required in any other case, on such terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court. He shall continue to co-operate with the investigation.

p. 207

9

It goes without saying that the respondent-State shall be at liberty to file appropriate application seeking cancellation of bail in case any of the conditions, that may be imposed by the Trial Court, are violated or breached by the appellant.

p. 207

10

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

p. 207

11

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed. Result of the case: Appeal allowed. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey

p. 207