JUDGMENT :

1. Admit. Learned Advocates for the respective respondents waive service of notice of Admission. With the consent of parties, the present appeals are taken up for final hearing.

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Vivek Bhamare for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2020 and Criminal Appeal No.286 of 2021 and learned APP Mr.L. B. Dabhi for the appellant State in Criminal Appeal No.1840 of 2021, and learned Advocate Mr.R. J. Goswami appearing on behalf of the private respondents in all the three Appeals. Since all the three Appeals challenge the validity of the orders granting regular bail to the accused of the very self-same FIR, all the Appeals are heard and decided together.

3. Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2020 has been preferred by the mother of the victim of FIR bearing I-C. R. No.13/2019, challenging an order passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Viramgam dated 15.10.2019 in Criminal Misc. Application No.309 of 2019, whereby regular bail had been granted to respondents No.2 to 5 therein, original accused Nos.3, and 5 to 8 of the said FIR.

4. Criminal Appeal No.286 of 2021 preferred by the mother of victim of the FIR referred herein above and Criminal Appeal No.1840 of 2021 preferred by the State, challenge the validity of the order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Viramgam in Criminal Misc. Application No.344 of 2019, whereby regular bail was granted to respondents No.2 to 4 of the respective Appeals – original accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 of the FIR referred to herein above.

5. The allegations levelled in FIR bearing I-C. R. No.13/2019 registered on 9.7.2019 with Mandal Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural) for offences punishable under Sections 302, 332, 353, 341, 143, 147, 148, 149, and 120B of IPC and for the offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(v) and Section 3(2)(5)(a) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and for the offences punishable under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The First Informant of the FIR, one Ms.Bhavikaben, daughter of Navajibhai Bhagora inter alia alleges that she has been working with GVK EMRI 181 Abhayam Mahila Helpline since last three years as a Counselling Officer and on the date of the offence i.e. 8.7.2019, she had received a message from the control room of the Head Office at 2.50 p.m., on the mobile number of the office that one Hareshbhai Yashvantbhai Solanki (later deceased/victim) had informed that he wanted to avail the service of the Abhayam Helpline, and whereas after a conference call the said Hareshbhai had asked the Abhayam Team to come to the Mandal Bus Stand. It is stated that said Hareshbhai Solanki had informed the First Informant that his wife Urmilaben had been taken away by her parents for last two months and since then he was not aware about his wife’s well being and it was also informed that his wife was two months’ pregnant, more particularly since his father-in-law wanted the deceased to come to the native village of the father-inlaw, therefore, request was made to the Helpline to counsel the family of his wife. It is stated that the First Informant along with driver Sunilkumar Navinchandra Solanki and woman Constable Ms.Arpitaben Lilabhai had gone in official Abhayam 181 Vehicle and had reached Mandal Bus Stand at around 17.43 hours, where they had contacted the deceased Hareshbhai Solanki and whereas three persons had reached the Helpline Vehicle being Hareshbhai Solanki, his mother Sushilaben and his relative Dirubhai Jayantibhai Jadav. It is stated that Hareshbhai had informed the First Informant that his wife was at her father’s place at Varmor village and that his father-in-law had come to his house at Gandhidham and had taken his wife with his consent and whereas his father-in-law was now calling Hareshbhai to his native village and, therefore, the aid of the Helpline was taken for counselling his in-laws. The First Informant had thereu