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

2022 Supreme(Guj) 226

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, J.
Purveg - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 6078 of 2020
Decided On : 21-02-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : N.D. Nanavati, Senior Counsel and Dharmesh R. Patel.
For the Respondents: Krina Calla, APP and Chirag Upadhyay.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedural Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 397, 452, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148, 504 and 506(2) – Attempt to Murder – Punishment for rioting – Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt - Punishment for criminal intimidation - House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint - Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt - Whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail or not – Held, presence of applicants and co-accused have not been denied by them and therefore, on day of incident, their presence at scene of offence is established - Whole incident has been captured in CCTV footage and images of footage produced by informant, which is confirmed by investigating agency - Court is of prima facie view that, accused and applicant No. 1 have participated in offence and their overt act in alleged offence is established - Accused was armed with washbasin pipe which has metal bolt, whereas applicant No. 1 used his belt and iron bracelet of victim - Victim was literally stripped by accused - It is evident from medical case papers that, victim was admitted in hospital - It is alleged against applicant No. 1 that he looted cash amount of Rs. 30,000/- from office of rector - It emerges from report of Investigating officer that, except one, all accused have been identified from CCTV footage - Name of accused disclosed in FIR itself - Investigation is still pending and as such there is no progress at all - considering factors and parameters, necessary to be considered for adjudication of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., without commenting on merits of case, Court find that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to applicant - Application is allowed in part.

JUDGMENT :

Ilesh J. Vora, J.

1. In this application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., the applicants Purveg @ Bunty Anilbhai Patel and Amit @ Bablu Pravinbhai Pandya are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11188009200014 of 2020 registered with Modasa Town Police Station, Dist. Aravalli, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 397, 452, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this application are that the complainant Miraj Desai and injured Anand Patel were serving as rector of Sunrise Hostel, situated at second floor, Block D, Tattvam Arcade, city Modasa, Dist. Aravalli. On the day of incident i.e. on 25.01.2020, at around 22:50 hours, they were on duty at hostel and victim Anand had gone to ground floor of the hostel as there was nuisance of stray dogs, when he was at the first floor of the hostel, seven persons including the present applicants herein chased him, formed an unlawful assembly and being members of the unlawful assembly, with their common object, caused bodily injuries upon Anandbhai. The applicant No. 1 Purveg @ Bunty Anil Patel snatched away the iron bracelet from the wrist of the victim and with the help of his belt, he assaulted the victim and thereafter, illegally entered into the office of the rector and looted cash amount of Rs. 30,000/-. The accused Hiren Patel assaulted the victim with washbasin pipe having metal bolt. It is alleged that, the other accused, who were present at the place, have also assaulted the victim. The victim was literally stripped by the main accused. It is alleged that, when the first informant tried to intervene, the main accused Hiren Chaudhary gave his introduction stating that he is Hiren Chaudhary and known person of village Dhansura and threatened that if they will file FIR, then be ready for dire consequences.

The whole incident captured in the CCTV camera installed at the hostel premises. The victim was taken to Satyam Multicare Hospital and Trauma Center for further treatment and was admitted as in patient for about 23 days as he suffered serious head injuries. In this background facts, the rector of the hostel, lodged the FIR for the offences as referred above. The statement of the victim in the form of dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate, wherein, with the name of Hiren Patel, he narrated the incident. The investigating agency recovered recording of CCTV footage and identified the persons involved in the alleged offence. As per the prosecution case, seven persons are involved in the offence and out of seven, six persons were identified namely (1) Hiren Hitesh Chaudhary (Patel) (2) Vikalp @ Honey Vinodbhai Gajjar (3) Pranjal Dilipbhai Patel (4) Purveg @ Bunty Anilbhai Patel (5) Harmeet @ Bapu Mukeshbhai Patel and (6) Amit @ Bablu Pravinbhai Pandya, whereas, the identity of one person is still not known to the agency.

3. The applicants herein moved an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court concerned, which came to be rejected by the Court observing that the offence alleged is serious and prima facie, reasonable ground to believe that the accused have committed an offence and for effective investigation, custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary and therefore, no case is made out for anticipatory bail.

4. This Court has heard Mr. N.D. Nanavati, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Dharmesh Patel, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Chirag Upadhyay, learned counsel for the first informant and Ms. Krina Calla, learned APP for the respondent State.

5. It is the submission of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant that, applicant No. 1 is serving as Talati-cum-Mantri and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. Applicant No. 2 though present at the place, did not cause any injury. Referring to the images of CCTV footage, submitted by the original informant, he urged that, the victim injured armed

    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