Important Point
Where there is ample prima facie evidence to connect the accused with a serious crime like murder, grant of bail without assigning cogent reasons would be unjust, illegal, improper and perverse.

JUDGMENT

R.P. Dholakia, J. — Rule. Mr. P.R. Abichandani, learned APP for the opponent No. 1 of Cri. Rev. Appln. No. 92 of 2004, Mr. K.J. Shethna, learned Senior Counsel for the opponent No. 2 of Cri. Rev. Appln. No. 92 of 2004 and opponent No. 1 of Cri. Rev. Appln. No. 102 of 2004, Mr. N.D. Nanavati, learned Counsel for opponent No. 3 of Cri. Rev. Appln. No. 92 of 2004 and opponent No. 2 of Cri. Rev. Appln., No. 102 of 2004, Mr. R.R. Trivedi, learned counsel for the opponent No. 4 of Cri. Rev. Appln. No. 92 of 2004 and opponent No. 3 of Cri. Rev. Appln. No. 102 of 2004 respectively waive service of notice of rule.

2. Criminal Revision Application No. 92 of 2004 has been filed by the original complainant-Jayeshbhai @ Panchabhai Muljibhai Satodiya while Criminal Revision Application No. 102 of 2004 has been filed by the State of Gujarat under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 and also read with Sec. 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 17.2.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gondal, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 28 of 2004 whereby opponent Nos. 2 to 4 of Cri. Rev. Appln. No. 92 of 2004 who are opponent Nos. 1 to 3 respectively in Cri. Rev. Appln. No. 102 of 2004 were granted anticipatory bail.

3. Since both the Criminal Revision Applications arise out of an order dated 17.2.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gondal, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 28 of 2004 in connection with Gondal City Police Station Crime Register No. I- 25 of 2004, with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, I have heard these matters together and are being decided by this common judg­ment and order.

4. The facts in short as described in the complaint are that on 8.2.2004 at about 8.30 p.m. the deceased Nilesh was travelling together with the complainant Jayeshbhai @ Panchabhai Muljibhai Satodiya and Ramjibhai Marakana in their Mahindra Utility Jeep Car. When they reached behind Central Talkies on Devpara Road, Gondal, a car overtook them. From the said car, Jayrajsinh, Amarjitsinh and Bhagat, brother of Vikramsinh Rana, got down with fire arms and Jayrajsinh Jadeja fired four rounds towards complainant and others. Due to firing, the complainant received injuries and glass win­dow of the jeep car was broken. To save their lives, Nilesh started the Utility Jeep Car and tried to flee away when Jayrajsinh again fired as a result of which, Nilesh received serious injuries and lost control over the Jeep Car and dashed with Balero Car as a result of that, Utility Jeep Car dashed on the wall of girls school and the complainant and Ramjibhai while running away looked at the back when they have seen the accused persons numbering 14-15 were causing injuries on Nilesh with the weapons like dharia, sword, gupti. The complainant and Ramjibhai hid them-selves into the urinal of the town hall. After about an hour, Ramjibhai was not in a position to walk. The complainant came out of the town hall and went to Charodi gate, hired a rickshaw and went near to his house where he found Vinubhai and other persons standing. He informed Vinubhai about the incident and they came to the town hall. From there, complainant went to file the com-plaint along with Vinubhai. Nilesh succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The complaint was registered as Crime Register No. 1-25 of 2004 with Gondal City Police Station for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Secs. 302, 143, 147, 148, 149, 341 of IPC, Sec. 25(1)(A) of Arms Act and Sec. 135 of the Bombay Police Act against the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Thereafter, by way of applications dated 11.2.2004 and 12.2.2004, Sec. 27 of the Arms Act as well as Secs. 307 and 120-B of IPC respectively were added. As the accused were not available, summons under Sec. 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’ for short) was issued against accused No. 1. He did not res