IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Nirzar S. Desai, J.
Bhagubha Hasubha Vaghela – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Gujarat –Respondent
R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 3339 of 2021
Decided On : 16-12-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 341, 384, 506(2), 120(b), 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Gujarat Police Act, 1951 – Section 135 –Arms Act, 1959 – Sections 25(1-a), 25(a), 27, 29 – Offence of murder – Criminal Conspiracy – Applicant is one of accused persons pursuant to FIR in respect of which accused were enlarged on bail by various orders passed by different coordinate Benches of this Court and orders granting bail to those accused persons were challenged before Hon’ble Supreme Court – Held, In view of aforesaid observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of co-accused persons and considering fact that role attributed to present applicant cannot be said to be any different role to role attributed to other co-accused persons and since role is almost similar, in view of aforesaid observations, even present applicant is not entitled to bail and accordingly this application for enlarging him on regular bail is required to be rejected and same is rejected – Ordered Accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
1. By way of this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘Cr.P.C’, for short], the applicant has prayed for regular bail in connection with FIR being CR.No.11993005200314 of 2020 registered with Adesar Police Station, Bhachau, Dist.Kutch for offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 341, 384, 506(2), 120(b) and 34 of Indian Penal Code along with sections 25(1-a), 25(a), 27 and 29 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.
2.1 The present applicant is one of the accused persons pursuant to FIR in respect of which accused Vishan Hira Koli, Pravin Hira Koli, Sidhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela, Khetabhai Parbat Koli, Vanraj Karshan Koli and Dinesh Karshan Akhiyani (Koli) were enlarged on bail by various orders passed by different coordinate Benches of this Court and the orders granting bail to those accused persons were challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
2.2 The Hon’ble Supreme, vide judgment dated 20.04.2021 quashed and set aside the order of this Court whereby bails were granted to each of those accused persons. At the relevant point of time though present applicant was not enlarged on bail and, therefore, his case was not considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, therefore, the present application is preferred.
3. The brief facts of the case are stated as under:
3.1 A First Information Report (“FIR”) being CR No 11993005200314 was registered on 9 May 2020 at Police Station Aadesar, District East Kachchh - Gandhidham for offences under Sections 302, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 341, 384, 120B, 506(2) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25(1-b) A, 27 and 29 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. The appellant - Ramesh Bhavan Rathod - is the informant on whose statement, the FIR was registered at 1930 hours in respect of an incident which took place at 1300 hours. The incident took place in village Hamirpur which is at a distance of 20 kms from the police station. The incident which led to the commission of five murders had its genesis in a land dispute. The informant alleged that he and his brother Pethabhai had gone to their farm at 6:00 am. At 1 pm, the informant, Pethabhai and his brother-in-law Akhabhai were returning home in a Scorpio vehicle with five other persons. When the vehicle reached the untarred road passing through the farm of Lakha Hira Koli and Kanji Bijal Koli, these two persons came out along with Lakha Hira Koli. Lakha Koli dashed his tractor on the front portion of the Scorpio vehicle. Kanji Koli parked his tractor on the rear side of the Scorpio, behind which another Sumo vehicle came to be stationed. The Scorpio and its occupants were waylaid. As the informant and others attempted to run away from the scene, he saw the homicidal incident which he describes in the following terms:
(1) Judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail, as in case of any other discretion which is vested in a court as a judicial institution, is not unstructured.(2) Parity while granting bail must ....
(1) Application for cancellation of bail stands on a different footing than challenging order passed by High Court/Appellate Court releasing accused on bail.(2) Bail cannot be granted without looking....
The decision emphasized the importance of considering the nature of the offence, severity of the punishment, and the likelihood of the accused interfering with the process of justice when deciding on....
(1) Bail – For grant or denial of bail, nature of crime has huge relevancy – Importance of assigning reasoning for grant or denial of bail can never be undermined.(2) Cancellation of bail – Bail once....
Court granting bail cannot obviate its duty to apply judicial mind and to record reasons, brief as they may be, for the purpose of deciding whether or not to grant bail.
(1) Bail – Order granting bail in a mechanical manner, without recording reasons, would suffer from vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal.(2) Court deciding bail application cannot co....
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.