JUDGMENT :

1. This application has been filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.11206002220236 of 2022 registered with Visnagar Taluka Police Station, Dist: Mehasana punishable under Sections 302, 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506(2), 427, 337 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the G.P.Act.

2. Mr.Pratik Barot, learned advocate for the applicants stated that the incident of 02.04.2004 has led to filing of two FIRs, and since nephew of the complainant in the present FIR, Mahesbhai Dashratbhai died, hence the FIR attracted Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murder; while the cross complaint invokes the provisions of Sections 323, 324, 504, 506(2), 143, 147, 148, 149, 337 of the IPC and Section 135 of the G.P. Act, which was registered on the very same day i.e. on 03.4.2022 being FIR No.11206002220236 of 2022 registered with Visnagar Taluka Police Station, Dist: Mehasana.

2.1 Mr.Barot submitted that actual genesis of the crime is suppressed by the complainant which gets clarify from the statement of witnesses, medical evidence and cross FIR and even by the medical evidence and chargesheet of the present matter. Mr.Barot submits that the place of incident initially shown near ‘Meldi Mata Temple’ which begins from an issue of parking of the Rikshaw (chhakdo) near the temple. Mr.Barot further submits that actually the incident had occurred when the father of the complainant of cross FIR, Arjanbhai Lakhabhai, had gone at the temple to rebuke them for teasing his granddaughter. Mr.Barot submits that drawing a case from parking of ‘Chhakdo’ Rikshaw, becomes improbable, and as per the version, the brother of the complainant, Chunilal Balchandbhai, had asked Karan Sanjaybhai not to park the vehicle near the temple, to that it is alleged that, he told him that he would park his vehicle there as it not their father’s property. Advocate Mr. Barot submits that, as per the prosecution case, during that period, Dharmendra Arjanbhai came there and asked them, as to why, they are threatening him. The complainant’s brother Chunilal again asked him not put his ‘Chhakdo’ there, and it is stated that at this time Arjanbhai Lakhabhai came there and started abusing and threatening them saying that the ‘Chhakdo’ would be parked there only, and asked them to do whatever they want. It is further stated that Chunilal asked Arjan Lakha not to threaten him; at that time, it is alleged that Karan Sanjay and Dharmendra Arjan with their knifes assaulted Chunilal Bhaichandbhai and caused injury at his left ear.

2.2 Referring to the Medical Certificate of Chunilal Bhaichand, Advocate Mr.Barot submits that, Chunilal Bhaichandbhai before the Medical Officer, General Hospital, Mehsana has given the history on his own and had stated about the assault injury at Hasanpur around 7.00 p.m. beaten with pipe by Sanjaybhai Arjanbhai, Dhanabhai Arjanbhai and Kishanbhai Mogarbhai. Mr.Barot further submitted that the injury was alleged to have been caused by knife, but the history suggests that he was beaten with pipe by three of the persons by adding Dhanabhai Arjanbhai and Kishanbhai Mogarbhai with Sanjaybhai Arjanbhai. Mr.Barot submitted that prior to that, the Injury Certificate of General Hospital, Vishnagar reflects the history that on 02.04.2022 at about 7.00 in the evening near Hasanpur temple, Sanjaybhai, Arjanbhai and Arjanbha’s two sons had beaten him with wooden baton and knife, while the said case is not reflected in the FIR. Mr.Barot submits that this itself suggests that the genesis of the original complaint gets falsified.

2.3 Mr.Barot further submitted that, had the issue arose because of the ‘Chhakda’ Rikshaw, then there would not have on the side of the driver of ‘Chhakda’, who is shown as Karan Sanjay, to have with him knife near the temple premises. He further submitted that the very case of showing an injury with the knife on Chunilal Balchandbhai is false on the face of