The main legal point established is that the addition of Section 120(B) of the IPC does not automatically imply the applicant's involvement as a conspirator, and bail decisions should consider the individual's criminal antecedents and the specific circumstances of the case.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. N.D. Nanavaty with learned advocate Mr. Laxmansinh M. Zala for the applicant, learned advocate Mr. K.S. Chandrani for the original complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Manan Mehta for the respondent – State.

2. By this application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant is seeking release on regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.11208003220447 of 2022 registered with Gandhigram-2 University Police Station, District: Rajkot City for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 337, 325, 324, 323, 504, 427, 114 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act.

3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. N.D. Nanavaty assisted by learned advocate Mr. Laxmansinh M. Zala submitted that the only role which is attributed to the present applicant is that he was doing videography at the time, when the deceased person was given a brick blow by the co-accused. Except, for the role of videography of the incident, the present applicant has beaten some other accused, which is not proved to be a fatal blow, except that, there is no role attributed to the present applicant.

4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Nanavaty further submitted that as far as the present applicant is concerned, there are no criminal antecedents in the past and that the allegations levelled against the present applicant by the complainant that the present applicant is a member of the Bharat Sosa gang are baseless and not substantiated by any evidence. It is submitted that in the past also, there were applications against the Bharat Sosa and his aids. However, no material has been found against the present applicant and therefore, though the present applicant was present at the scene of offence and he has caused injury to the persons mentioned in the complaint, the injury caused was not fatal though. Considering the fact that the role attributed to the present applicant is mainly of doing videography at the time when the incident occurred, therefore, the present applicant is required to be enlarged on regular bail.

5. Learned advocate Mr. K.S. Chandrani appearing for the original complainant has vehemently opposed the present application. It is because of the lengthy arguments, as if, learned advocate Mr. Chandrani was arguing a Criminal Appeal, the matter which otherwise could have been over within fifteen-twenty minutes, this Court was compelled to hear the matter for a period of three days i.e. on 13th, 14th and 17th of October, 2022. Learned advocate Mr. Chandrani has alleged against the present applicant that he is the member of Bharat Sosa gang and that the gang is very active in purchasing the property at a very low price from the members of the Radhe Krishna Society by threatening them, as compared to the market price. Learned advocate Mr. Chandrani has further submitted that the applicant may not be enlarged on bail considering the fact that no other role, except, committing the videography and causing some injury to the persons, thus, there is no role of the present applicant in the present application. However, considering the totality of facts and circumstances and considering the larger picture, this Court may not exercise discretion in favour of the applicant as the present applicant is in the business of extortion by way of threat and compelling the innocent citizens of Radhe Krishna Society to sell their residential premises at a much lower price.

5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Chandrani submitted that in view of addition of Section 120(B) of the IPC to the original FIR along with Section 302 of the IPC, the role of the present applicant is akin to the role of the main accused and further considering the fact that there are 22 applications against the present applicant, therefore, the present applicant may not be enlarged on bail.

5.2 Learned advocate Mr. Chandrani gave a compilation of authorities (five in total) and relied upon