IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
GITA GOPI, J.
Ravi Nileshbhai Sagpariya – Applicant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Criminal MISC. Application No. 15787 of 2021
Decided On : 08-12-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 307, 120B, 326, 325, 324, 323, 506(2), 504, 143, 147, 148, 149 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 (2) – Gujarat Police Act, 1951 – Section 135(1) – Offence of murder – Attempt to murder – Criminal Conspiracy – Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means – Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt – Punishment for criminal intimidation – Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace – Application is under Section 439 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for cancellation of bail and for quashing and setting aside of order passed by learned 15th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Miscellaneous Application whereby learned Sessions Judge was pleased to allow regular bail of present respondent No.2 – Held, It is further submitted that though Sections 302 and 120B of Indian Penal Code have been invoked in matter, while police has not deemed it fit to arrest present applicant. Further, as per charge-sheet, complainant was admitted in Medisurge Hospital and after treatment, they were advised to take rest and during that period, complainant had pain in his stomach and for further treatment, he was taken for examination where he was declared dead – Learned Judge while granting bail has taken into consideration plea of alibi raised by way of documentary evidence of Civil Hospital and CCTV Footage alongwith Affidavit of a person who was accompanying respondent No.2 to grant bail to respondent No.2. facts of case suggest that after long treatment and after discharge from hospital, deceased was advised to take rest – First Information Report is and death of deceased occurred which according to charge-sheet was due to the pain in stomach, while after alleged incident, deceased was taken to MediSurge Hospital for treatment from where he was discharged – Application rejected.
ORDER :
1. The application is under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to in short as ‘the Code’) for cancellation of bail and for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 07.01.2021 passed by the learned 15th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.2611 of 2020 whereby the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to allow the regular bail of the present respondent No.2. The impugned order shows that regular bail was granted in connection with the First Information Report bearing C.R. No.11208002202063 of 2020 dated 19.12.2020 registered with Aaji Dam Police Station, Rajkot City for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 325, 324, 323, 506(2), 504, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act.
2. Learned Advocate for the applicant Mr. K.S. Chandrani submits that the son of the deceased (first Informant) is the de-facto complainant and that prior to filing of the charge-sheet, the respondent No.2 was released on regular bail by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that he was not present at the scene of offence and was at Civil Hospital, Rajkot and thereafter, at Naklank Hotel, Kalawad Road, Rajkot. It is further submitted that the plea which has been raised by the respondent No.2 at the stage of bail ought not to have been considered by the learned Sessions Judge since the investigation was still proceeding and the reliance on the plea of alibi for granting bail in a heinous offence which is imprisonment for life has led to grant of bail and the same is illegal and erroneous and deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is also submitted that the plea of alibi raised by the accused cannot be accepted simply on the words of the accused without there being any concrete evidence in this regard and thus, reliance placed by the learned Sessions Judge in appreciating the same to grant bail has led to an unjust and unfair order leading to miscarriage of justice.
3. Learned Advocate Mr. K.S. Chandrani submitted that the bail application preferred by the co-accused before and after the filing of the charge-sheet came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge and hence, the order granting bail to the respondent No.2 is contrary to the observations made in the orders rejecting the bail of the co-accused and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that there are specific allegations in the First Information Report qua the respondent No.2 that he had caused injuries to the deceased with a stick and the same has been corroborated by the injured witnesses as well as the eye witnesses who state about the presence of the respondent No.2 at the place of offence and therefore, the order passed by the learned Judge is contrary to the investigation carried out since the charge-sheet has been filed against the respondent No.2 without any Report under Section 169 of the Code and therefore, the bail granted is required to be cancelled.
4. Further, exploring the facts of the case, it is submitted that the deceased was beaten with iron pipe, stick and other weapons by the respondent No.2 and others and therefore, the deceased suffered multiple grievous injuries all over the body and because of the injuries, he was under treatment from 19.12.2020 to 28.12.2020 as an indoor patient and thereafter, died on 18.01.2021. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, the investigating officer recorded the further statement of the injured victims. One of the injured victims – Mayurbhai had disclosed the role of the respondent No.2. It is also submitted that the final opinion, as to the cause of the death of the deceased as given by the F.S.L., is on account of the injuries sustained by the deceased all over the body. Thus, it is submitted that the cause of death is directly attributed to the injuries caused by the respondent No.2 and other co-accus
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar and Others
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah and Another
The discretion to grant bail must be exercised judiciously, considering the gravity of the offence, evidence, and potential obstruction of justice.
The court has the authority to cancel bail if the order suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice, and if the accused misuses their liberty, interferes with the investigati....
Cancellation of Bail – Court while granting bail has not considered the nature and gravity of the accusations, severity of the punishment in the event of bail, likelihood of repetition of the offence....
The main legal point established is that the grounds for granting and cancelling bail should consider the seriousness of the offence, nature of evidence, and likelihood of interference with justice.
The main legal point established is that the discretion to grant bail should be exercised judiciously, considering the seriousness of the offence and the need for proper reasoning in bail orders.
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.