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

2018 Supreme(Guj) 989

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SONIA GOKANI, J.
Sajid Abdulrehman Panja - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 9290 of 2018
Decided On : 01-08-2018

Advocates Appeared:
Laxmansinh M Zala, Adv., Kaivan K Patel, Adv., Rohit S Verma, Adv., Nanavati, Adv., Maithili Mehta, Adv.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 395, 397, 341, 427 and 114 - Gujarat Police Act - Section 135 - Bail sought - It is the case of the applicant that the learned Sessions Judge, in an anticipatory bail moved by the accused- respondent vide Criminal Misc. Application allowed the same which has aggrieved the present complainant who is before this Court seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail - Held, Court has not only disregarded the nature and gravity of accusation and the roles attributed to the accused in the story of prosecution, but also, the antecedents of one of the respondents and also the greater possibly of the accused likely to repeat the similar such offence - It is also quite clear as can be made out from the material on record that the accusation have not been made with a view to cause injury or for humiliating the respondents - Impact of grant of the anticipatory bail also has been disregarded - If one strikes a balance between two factors of the right to personal liberty and the free and fair investigation the balance surely would tilts not in favour of the respondents - For the foregoing reasons, present application is allowed - Anticipatory bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order to both the respondents-accused is hereby cancelled - Application allowed. (Paras 21, 22)

JUDGMENT

SONIA GOKANI, J.

1. This application under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is preferred by the original-complainant for cancellation of bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval vide order dated 02.05.2018 in Criminal Misc. Application No.121 of 2018.

2. The applicant is the original complainant who is residing at village Veraval, District Gir Somnath. It is his case in the FIR dated 27.04.2018 lodged with the Sutrapada Police Station, District Gir Somnath being IC.R.No.24 of 2018 for the offences registered under Sections 395, 397, 341, 427 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. That he with his friend had gone to his farm located near village Javantri, Bamnasa of Talala Gir Taluka on 26.04.2018. While they were returning from the farm in the night, the applicant found one white coloured hyundai i20 car bearing Registration No.GJ-32-B-5454 on the side of the road. When he tried to find out as to who the persons were, there were three persons inside the car and they asked him to go away. When he moved ahead in his car, they intercepted his car. His request to remove the vehicle from the road fell on the deaf ears. The heated exchange of words took place at that stage and both the vehicles went ahead. However, the applicant was scared of the occupants of the hyundai i20 car and therefore, he changed his route to avoid any further disputes. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 by then had gathered about 11 to 12 persons who obstructed the vehicle of the applicant at village Ghantiya Pranchi and started beating the applicant with the iron wheel-wrench, iron pipe and baseball bat. The three persons were seriously injured and needed to be hospitalized. One of his friends, Shri Yusufbhai Husainbhai Kapadiya sustained injury on his nose and eyes and Shri Hanifbhai Vora also sustained injuries on his left eye and Shri Farukhusain received 10 stitches on his head and injuries on the wrist.

3. The applicant-original complainant therefore, lodged an FIR with the Rudrapada Police Station at 00:30 hours 27.04. 2018 itself. It is the case of the applicant that the learned Sessions Judge, Veraval in an anticipatory bail moved by the accused- respondent Nos.2 and 3 vide Criminal Misc. Application No.121 of 2018 allowed the same which has aggrieved the present complainant who is before this Court seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail.

4. This Court had issued Rule on 10.05.2018 when the respondents appeared and sought time. At the time of hearing, this Court on 25.07.2018 noticed that serious injuries were sustained by one of the victims, namely, Shri Yusuf Kapadiya, injury certificate was also produced by the Investigating Officer and there was further treatment that was needed to be taken according to the Investigating Officer from Retina Foundation, Ashopalav Hospital under Dr.Naagpal.

5. This Court has heard the learned advocate, Mr.Laxmansinh Zala who appears for the original complainant and has fervently urged that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval has completely overlooked the glaring facts in the instant case where three persons were gravely injured and were hospitalized. The kind of weapons which were used and the amount of damage that has been also caused to the vehicle and terror that had been created due to the indiscriminate blows of baseball bat and iron pipe on the persons as well as on the vehicle, it is hardly the case of either concoction or exaggerated version deserving any discretionary relief in favour of the respondents-accused at the stage of anticipatory bail.

5.1 He has further urged that the respondent No.3 has four criminal antecedents against him for committing similar kind of offences and yet, the Trial Court has chosen to exercise discretionary powers in his favour. He has urged that on completely irrelevant and erroneous consideration that the Trial Court has allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The request is also fu
































































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top