The discretion to grant bail must be exercised judiciously, considering the gravity of the offence, evidence, and potential obstruction of justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule.

2. This application is filed by the applicant - original complainant under Sections 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 - original accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 by an order dated 19.05.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 85 of 2022 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special (POCSO) Court and Fast Track Court, Rajula, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to grant regular bail to the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 302, 323, 504, 34, 143, 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, for which, FIR C.R. No. 11193024201046 of 2010 came to be registered before the Jafrabad Police Station, Dist.: Amreli.

3. Heard, Mr. Hriday Buch, learned advocate for the applicant - original complainant and Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State and learned advocate Mr. Malaykumar Patel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 - original accused.

3.1 The learned advocate for the applicant - original complainant vehemently submitted that despite the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 - original accused having been arraigned in a serious offence, the learned Sessions Judge has granted bail to them, despite there being prima facie case against the accused persons. He submitted that the order granting bail is completely unjust, arbitrary, perverse and without any justification inasmuch, there are ample evidence on record suggesting involvement of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the crime in question. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has also failed to consider the evidence of the material eye-witnesses, who have clearly supported the case of the prosecution.

3.2 The learned advocate for the applicant - original complainant further vehemently submitted that the Post Mortem Report suggests 22 fatal injuries having been sustained by the deceased, which were opined to be the ante mortem in nature. Further, blood stains were also found on the clothes of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, which is suggestive of the fact of presence of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 at the scene of offence. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that CCTV Footage was also sent for forensic examination, however, the same is also not considered by the learned Sessions Judge while enlarging them on bail.

3.3 The learned advocate for the applicant further submitted that the accused are headstrong persons and there are all chances of intimidation to the prosecution witnesses as well as threat to the family of the complainant.

He submitted that a representation to that effect was also made by the elders of Chitrasar Village to the officials concerned.

3.4 Last but not the least, taking this Court to the judgment and order dated 13.06.2022 passed by the coordinate Bench in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 16252 of 2021 and 5114 of 2022, it is submitted that the coordinate Bench, taking into consideration all such aspects of the matter, has cancelled the bail granted to the original accused Nos. 1 and 4 and accordingly, in his submission, this application also deserves favourable consideration, more particularly, considering the seriousness of the offence. 3.5 Thus, making above submissions, it is urged that this application may be allowed and to cancel the bail granted to the respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4 - original accused.

3.6 In support, the learned advocate for the applicant - original complainant has relied upon following decisions:

i) Ranjit Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2013) 16 SCC 797;

ii) Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230;

iii) Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118;

iv) Ishwar Nagji Mali v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2022) SCC Online SC 55.

4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Malaykumar Patel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, while vehemently opposi