SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Pat) 2653

[2012 (1) East Cr C 243 (Guj)]
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
ANANT S. DAVE. J.
Yashpal Jitubha Chudasama - Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. - Respondents
Crt. Misc Application No. 15199 of 2010,
Decided On : December 22, 2010.

Headnote:

CONSPIRACY - Criminal Procedure - Section 120-B, 364, 365, 368, 341, 342, 302, 384, 201 - The judgment discusses the nature and gravity of the accusations, the role of the accused, and the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice. The Court also considers the impact of granting anticipatory bail in cases affecting a large number of people. The Court emphasizes the need for a balance between the prevention of harassment and the protection of free, fair, and full investigation. The judgment also highlights the need to evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and to consider the reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses or threats to the complainant. The Court rejects the applications for anticipatory bail, citing the severity of the charges, the nature of the accusations, and the role attributed to the applicants.

Fact of the Case:

The applicants, accused Nos. 18 and 17, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with a case involving charges under Sections 120-B, 364, 365, 368, 341, 342, 302, 384, and 201 of the IPC. The charges related to a criminal conspiracy to eliminate Sohrabuddin, including influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence.

Finding of the Court:

The Court rejected the applications for anticipatory bail, citing the severity of the charges, the nature of the accusations, and the role attributed to the applicants. The Court emphasized the need for a balance between the prevention of harassment and the protection of free, fair, and full investigation.

Issues: The nature and gravity of the accusations, the exact role of the accused, the antecedents of the applicants, the possibility of the applicants fleeing from justice, and the possibility of the accused repeating similar or other offenses were considered by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need to evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and to consider the reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses or threats to the complainant. The Court also highlighted the need for a balance between the prevention of harassment and the protection of free, fair, and full investigation.

Final Decision: The applications for anticipatory bail were rejected by the Court, and the operation of the order was stayed for a period of three weeks to allow the applicants to avail the remedy before the higher forum.

ORDER

By the Court.- The applicants-accused Nos. 18 and 17, as shown in the charge-sheet, have preferred these applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') for anticipatory bail and/or extension of anticipatory bail granted vide order dated 21.9.2010 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh H. Shukla) in connection with the FIR registered by CBI bearing No. RC BSI/2010/S0004-MUM at Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with Section 364, 365, 368, 341, 342, 302, 384 and 201 of the IPC.

2. According to the applicants they are leading persons in co-operative sector and are also directors in the Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank and are enjoying high status and reputation in the society.

3. The prosecution case, as per the charge-sheet qua the applicants herein is as under :-

"4. The accused persons from Gujarat and Rajasthan entered into a criminal conspiracy to eliminate Sohrabuddin as seen from the conduct of subsequent events when Rajasthan and Gujarat Police acted in connivance in the abduction and killing of Sohrabuddin. That the Gujarat Police in order to create reasons for picking up Sohrabuddin stage managed the firing using the gang members of Sohrabuddin at the business premises of Shri Raman Patel and Shri Dashrath Patel in Navrangpura on 8.12.2004, which is the subject matter in the Navrangpura PS Crime No. 1124/2004. As Shri Sohrabuddin was well known to Shri Abhay Chudasama (A-15) he directed Sohrabuddin to create a terror and panic in the town of Ahmedabad at a well known business premises of Patel Brothers by his gang members resorting to opening of firing. However, with due caution not to cause any physical harm to any persons. Accordingly, Sohrabuddin had sent Sylvester and Tulsi Prajapati to the said premises on 8.12.2004. The firing indeed took place which resulted in the registration of the case in Navarngpura Crime No. 1124/2004. The complaint in this case was lodged by one Beena Dave, Receptionist of M/s. Popular Builders. In the said firing the victims were Patel Brothers (Raman Patel and. Dashrath Patel). Shri Vanzara (A- 1) and Shri Amit Shah (A- 16) directed Patel Brothers to give a statement against' Sohrabuddin and others failing which the Patel Brothers would face dire consequences. They were made as accused at a subsequent stage when Patel Brothers refused to give a statement as directed by Amit Shah (A-16) and Vanzara (A-1) wherein they wanted to implicate Sohrabuddin in a sensational case which could justify elimination of Sohrabuddin at a later stage. The elimination of Sohrabuddin was being used for extortions by the accused persons to establish an element of fear in the minds of businessmen and others. The motive for the accused persons from Rajasthan Police to participate in the conspiracy of elimination of Sohrabuddin was activities of Sohrabuddin in terrorizing Rajasthan Marble lobby.

10. Investigation also revealed that after killing of Sohrabuddin in fake encounter on 26.11.2005. Shri Ramanbhai Patel and Shri Dashrathbhai Patel were arrested on 16.12.2005 by Shri D.G. Vanzara (A-1). the then DIG of ATS, Ahmedabad at the instance of Shri Amit Shah (A-16), Minister of State Government of Gujarat and Rs. 60 lakhs were extorted from them by Shri D.G. Vanzara (A-1) by threatening them and their family with dire consequences. Further Shri Amit Shah (A-16) also caused threats of preventive detention under the Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act (PASA) and demanding Rs.90 lakhs from the two brothers through his close associate. Shri Ajay Patel (A-17), Chairman of the Ahmedabad District Co-operative Bank, Ahmedabad. In the bargain, the Patel Brothers paid Rs. 70 lakhs in three installments to Shri Amit Shah (A-16), Minister of State. Government of Gujarat through Shri Ajay Patel (A-17) in May, 2006. After receipt of money the said proposal u




































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top