SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Guj) 829

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
Binaben Wd/o Ashokbhai Panchal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & others – Respondent
R/Criminal Misc.Application No. 9792 of 2016
Decided on : 01-07-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR TEJAS M BAROT
For the Respondent: MS DHARA M SHAH, MS MAITHILI MEHTA

Headnote:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 - Cancellation of bail - Abetment of suicide - Application is preferred by complainant for cancellation of bail granted to original accused – Held, Court cannot interfere with order passed by Trial Court except in case of any overwhelming circumstance or any breach of condition or any other special circumstance shown by applicant – Court is of opinion that in present case, when respondent original accused has been released on bail and has not committed any breach of conditions imposed by Court and when there is no overwhelming circumstances, there is no reason to exercise power under Section 439(2) of Code and cancel bail granted in favour of respondent - original accused – Application dismissed.

ORDER :

1. This application is preferred under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the complainant for cancellation of bail granted to the original accused by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 21.11.2015 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 907 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the offence registered being I.C.R. No.150 of 2015 before Langhnaj Police Station, Mehsana.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant's late husband Ashokbhai Amratlal Panchal was engaged in trade of labour contractor along with his brother Deepakbhai. They both were also got Government work. In connection of the said work, there was a demand of money as Government contract entailed delayed payment in respect of the work.

Under the circumstances, the Applicant's husband was compelled to borrow money from the market with high rate of interest and therefore, he remained under constant pressure. The Applicant's husband was also telephonically contacted with lenders, who were pressing for their money and interest, of which the Applicant was aware.

2.1 The Applicant's husband had also borrowed some amounts of money from the Respondent no.2. As the Respondent no.2 lent money to the Applicant's husband, the said Respondent no.2 was pressing hard for recovery of his money along with interest.

2.2 On 24.10.2015, husband of the applicant left home in the morning at around 8:00 a.m. under stress and duress. Later on in the afternoon when the Applicant tried to contact her husband, he could not be contacted and therefore, the Applicant called up her brother-in-law viz. Deepkbhai and requested him to look out for her husband. When the Applicant's brother-in-law made inquires in the School at Village Tundali, Ashokbhai’s dead body was found hanging in the class room of the said School. The Police authorities consequently came to the scene and started conducting their inquiries. Subsequently, the dead body of deceased Ashokbhai was taken to Mehsana Civil Hospital for the purpose of performing postmortem. After performing the rituals and the cremation, the Applicant was given her husband's mobile instrument by her brother-in-law Deepakbhai. The Applicant was also informed by Deepakbhai that there were many calls from particular unknown number and number belongs to respondent No.2, from whom the husband of the applicant had taken loan and who had sent messages to the deceased threatening him. Due to the harassment the deceased had committed suicide.

2.3 Therefore, the wife of the applicant had filed complaint before the Langhnaj Police Station being I.C.R. No. 150 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent No.2.

2.4 In connection with the offence registered against the accused, the accused approached the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Mehsana seeking anticipatory bail. After perusing the record and the evidence placed on record, the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana vide order dated 21.11.2015 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 907 of 2015 granted anticipatory bail to the accused person and therefore, the original complainant has filed present application for cancellation of bail granted to the original accused.

3. Heard Mr. Tejas M. Barot, learned Counsel for the applicant, Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned APP for the respondent No.1 State of Gujarat and Ms. Dhara M. Shah, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 original accused.

4. Mr. Barot learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the impugned order is ex facie illegal and arbitrary and that the same is passed without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that considering the allegations and seriousness alleged against the accused persons, learned Sessions Judge ought not have granted anticipatory bail to the accused person. He further submitted that the accused is involved in serious crime and committed

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top