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

2004 Supreme(Guj) 133

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :R.P.Dholakia
JAYESHBHAI @ PANCHABHAI MULJIBHAI SATODIYA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION92 of 2004
Decided On : 03/05/2004

Advocates Appeared: BHAVESH P.TRIVEDI, K.J.SETHNA, N.D.NANAVATI, P.M.THAKKAR, P.R.ABICHANDANI, R.R.TRIVEDI, YOGESH S.LAKHANI

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) - Secs. 397, 401, 438 & 439(2) - Anticipatory bail - Order of - Sustainability - Factors such as difference in time of incident, plea of alibi, change in weapons and status of accused prima facie cannot be considered at the stage of considering question of anticipatory bail to accused - There will be their ground of defence - Therefore, grant of anticipatory bail by learned Judge in case of rioting, murder, etc. on such basis giving undue weightage to these factors is unjust, illegal, improper and perverse - It cannot be allowed to stand - Impugned order of learned Judge set aside.

       Court is of the opinion that the factors such as difference in the time of incident, alibi, change in weapons and status of accused prima facie cannot be considered at this stage in view of the fact that at the earliest opportunity by way of statements and further statement of injured eye-witness and other evidences, names of the accused with their specific roles together with their respective weapons have been disclosed and also the fact that since the incident has taken place in a terrorized manner, witnesses would not be able to identify each and every person at that point of time apart from the fact that investigation is still incomplete. These will be their defence which would be available to the opponents-accused at the time of trial. When there is ample prima facie evidence on record connecting the accused with the crime in question, ignoring all these aspects, without assigning cogent reasons, the Court below has given undue weightage to these factors. The said act of learned Judge in granting anticipatory bail is unjust, illegal, improper and perverse.

       [Para 26]

R. P. DHOLAKIA, J.

( 1 ) 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 Senior 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 themselves 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 complainant along with Vinubhai. Nilesh succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The complaint was registered as Crime Register No. I-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 no






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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