IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
GITA GOPI, J.
Pritam S/o. Kailash Narayan Matadin Gohil - Applicant
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 12693 of 2022
Decided On : 06-10-2022
Regular Bail - Criminal Procedure - IPC, G.P. Act - 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 149, 449, 302, 323, 324, 396, 427, 135(1) - The court discussed the provisions of IPC and G.P. Act, including sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 449, 302, 323, 324, 396, 427, and 135(1) and their application in the case. The court highlighted the lack of specific evidence and the nature of the allegations, leading to the exercise of discretion in favor of the applicant for regular bail.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed for regular bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with an FIR for offenses under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 149, 449, 302, 323, 324, 396, and 427 of IPC and section 135(1) of the G.P. Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused had assaulted the deceased with deadly weapons, leading to his death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the nature of the allegations and the lack of specific evidence warranted the exercise of discretion in favor of the applicant for regular bail.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the allegations, lack of specific evidence, and the exercise of discretion for granting regular bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court exercised discretion in favor of the applicant for regular bail based on the lack of specific evidence and the nature of the allegations.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and ordered the release of the applicant on regular bail, subject to specified conditions.
ORDER :
1. This application has been filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11191045202147 of 2020 registered with Sola High Court Police Station, Ahmedabad for offences punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 149, 449, 302, 323, 324, 396 and 427 of IPC and section 135(1) of the G.P. Act.
2. Mr. Arshad Shaikh, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that, the allegation by the prosecution is that the persons, who had gone to the deceased house had assaulted him with deadly weapon, which caused death.
2.1 Mr. Shaikh submits that no role has been alleged in the FIR and prosecution story shows that the applicant has been falsely implicated. No specific overt act has been attributed to the applicant. Mr. Shaikh further submits that, as per the prosecution case, on earlier evening, the person had gathered for settlement to the quarrel and Viswajit Goswami, who had recorded the said meeting in his mobile phone, the video does not disclose the presence of the applicant. He submits that as per the prosecution case, the deceased - Pradip, was having talk with Anish Pande and Rahul and other boys, and it is alleged that they had slapped him on the face and thereafter Anish Pande and his friends went away, and according to Viswajit Goswami, he, deceased - Pradip and Akshay Bharwad, all three were resting on the upper floor of the house, and according to him early morning at about 5:30, someone knocked the door and when he went out, he saw four persons were out of the room having sword and other two having wooden logs, were trying to open the door, therefore he went inside the room to inform the deceased Pradip and the deceased came out of the house. He submits that according to Viswajit Goswami, Anish Pande had a knife, Rahul Sharma carried a wooden log, Anil Kori was yielded with a knife, Rahul Kori had a pipe, Nitin had wooden log, Amavas was carrying a sword and the present applicant is alleged of having the wooden log in his hand, and one of the friend of Amavas was also holding the sword.
2.2 Mr. Shaikh submitted that, as per the say of the Viswajit after entering into the house, all accused started beating him, Pradip and Akshay Bharwad. As per his say, all these people have given him blow with wooden log on his left hand and on his back and according to him, Akshay Bharwad and Kajal had no enmity with them, thus, they were asked to remove themselves from the place and accused by hitting them with wooden log had locked them in Kitchen. Mr. Shaikh submits that during this time, this witness alleges that he has received injuries on his head with the sword. Mr. Shaikh submits that he has not specified about the person, who has given blow with the wooden log, nor he has seen the incident of co-accused hitting deceased Pradip. He submits that, as per this witness, there is general allegation against all the accused that they had beaten Pradip to death, when they came out of the kitchen room had seen dead-body of Pradip on the floor and had not seen any of the accused at that time.
2.3 As per Mr. Shaikh, on the earlier evening also the present applicant was not present. Further the witness has not specified any injury received from the applicant with the wooden log, nor there is any clarity of the injury received by the deceased at the time when they had come out of the room; he had not seen any of the accused; thus, as per Mr. Shaikh the presence of the applicant is very much doubtful. Mr. Shaikh submits that the present applicant has been arrested from Ahmedabad. It was, therefore, prayed that the present application may be allowed and the applicant herein may be released on regular bail.
3. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that, all had common intention to kill deceased - Pradip, and all were armed with knifes, sword and baton, and the complainant had also sustained injury with the sword. Mr. Trivedi submits that the appl
The exercise of discretion in granting regular bail based on the lack of specific evidence and the nature of the allegations.
The court denied bail based on the gravity of the charges and substantial corroborating evidence of the applicant's active involvement in the murder.
The court emphasized the need for supporting evidence from witnesses and reasonable doubt about the prosecution's claims in granting bail under Section 439(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Point of Law : Rejection of Bail - Several of co-accused are still absconding - There is a likelihood of applicant also jumping bail and flee from justice since many of his associates are yet to be a....
Point of Law : Grant of Bail looking at the nature of allegations made against the applicant in the FIR.
authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge co....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision to grant bail was influenced by the lack of evidence directly implicating the applicant, the completion of the investigation, and....
The grant of bail is based on the lack of evidence linking the applicant to the crime and the pendency of the trial, while imposing stringent conditions to address the prosecution's apprehension.
The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court and is regulated by the facts and circumstances of each particular case.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.