Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
B.N. KARIA, J.
Mohitbhai Brijendrasinh Chauhan - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
R/Criminal Appeal No. 1062 of 2020
Decided On : 01-12-2020
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w) (ii), 3(2)(va) and 14A - Indian Penal Code - Sections 354A, 354D, 419 - Information and Technology Act – Sections 66C, 66D and 67 – Offence of stalking - Offences of atrocities - Provisions of Atrocities Act - Applicability of - Seeking regular bail - Appellant is ordered to be enlarged on regular bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions.
Facts of the case: Appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has not committed alleged offence - That appellant is falsely implicated in alleged offence only on basis of suspicion without there being any incriminating material or evidence against present appellant - He further submits that appellant was already granted bail so far as offences, appellant has been again arrested - Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellant to quash and set aside impugned judgment and order passed by learned Special Judge and releases the appellant on bail.
Findings of the court: Court opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of present appellant by enlarging him on regular bail and hence, the prayer sought for by the present appellant requires consideration - Hence, this Court view that present appeal deserves consideration - Impugned judgment and order passed by learned Special Judge in Criminal Misc. Application quashed and set aside.
Result : Criminal Appeal allowed
ORDER :
1. The appellant preferred one Criminal Misc. Application No. 265 of 2020 before the Court of learned Special Judge, Narmada at Rajpipla u/s. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requesting to enlarge him on regular bail in connection with offence being registered vide C.R. No.11823014200223 of 2020 with Kevadia Police Station, Narmada for the offence punishable under Sections 354A, 354D, 419 of the Indian Penal Code; Sections 66C, 66D and 67 of Information and Technology Act and u/s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w) (ii), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short "the Atrocities Act") wherein, the learned Special Judge, Narmada at Rajpipla rejected the said application on 17.10.2020.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred present appeal u/s 14A of the Atrocities Act.
3. Heard learned advocate for the appellant and learned APP for the respondent-State.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has not committed alleged offence. That the appellant is falsely implicated in the alleged offence only on the basis of suspicion without there being any incriminating material or evidence against the present appellant. He further submits that appellant was already granted bail so far as offence punishable under Sections 354A, 354D, 419 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66C, 66D and 67 of Information and Technology Act are concerned. Merely upon the addition of offence punishable under sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989, the appellant has been again arrested. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellant to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Special Judge, Narmada at Rajpipla and release the appellant on bail.
5. Today, learned APP for the respondent-State has produced a report dated 01.12.2020 under the Signature of Deputy Superintendent of Police, S.C/S.T. Cell, Narmada addressing to the Government Pleader, Gujarat High Court as well as xerox copy of statement of first informant-respondent No.2 namely Divyaben Natvarbhai Tadvi and statement of Ranjitbhai Jethabhai Tadvi recorded on 30.11.2020, which are taken on record. Learned APP for the respondent-State has strongly objected the arguments advanced by learned advocate for the appellant and submitted that serious offence was committed by the present appellant and prosecution has established prima facie case against the present appellant. That, no lenient view shall be taken by this Court by enlarging the present appellant on bail. Hence, it was requested by learned APP for the respondent-State to dismiss present appeal.
6. As per the statement of first informant-respondent No.2 namely Divyaben Natvarbhai Tadvi recorded by the i/c Police Inspector, Kevadiya Police Station, Dist-Narmada on 30.11.2020, notice was duly served to her but she did not want to remain present before this Court and she did not want to contest this criminal appeal.
7. Having considered the facts of the case and having heard arguments advanced by learned advocate for the appellant as well as learned APP for the respondent-State, it appears that in connection with FIR, appellant was arrested on 14.09.2020 and he was produced before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurudeshwar, and thereafter, he was released on regular bail vide order dated 15.09.2020. It also appears that thereafter investigating agency filed an application for adding sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989, which was allowed by the concerned court. Subsequently, the investigating agency also requested the Court to issue arrest warrant due to addition of the charges, which was also allowed and appellant was again arrested on 09.10.2020, thereafter, appellant approached the learned Special Judge, Narmad
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
