The court denied bail due to the serious nature of the offense and the risk of tampering with evidence, emphasizing the need for judicial integrity.

ORDER :

1. By way of the present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the ‘Act 1989’) the appellant- original accused has prayed to release him on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11198015231655 of 2023 registered with Bortalav Police Station, Bhavnagar.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1 The FIR in question came to be registered at the instance of one Geetaben Kishorbhai Maru. The complainant has stated that about 6.00 p.m. in the evening when she had gone to purchase bidi for her husband, at that time the complainant saw the present appellant, his friend and two other persons armed with iron pipe and they were abusing her and the present appellant and his friend Rohan informed her to settle the dispute that about three years ago an FIR which was registered by her son against the present appellant. All these four persons started assaulting the complainant with the iron pipe and damaged the CCTV at the shop and the complainant was shouting. On hearing the shouts, the husband and daughter of the complainant arrived and these four persons escaped and threatened to kill the complainant if the complainant did not settle the matter. Thereafter, the FIR in question came to be filed. Hence the present appeal.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. V.A. Zala appearing for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. Jay Shah appearing for the husband of the original complainant and learned APP appearing for the respondent-State.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Zala appearing for the appellant while referring to charge-sheet papers would submit that omnibus allegations are made in the FIR as well as in the charge-sheet. He would further submit that no specific role is attributed to the present appellant either in the FIR or in the charge-sheet. He would submit that according to FIR and charge-sheet, four persons namely Shailesh Dhanji Koli, Rohan Shambhu Koli and two unidentified persons came with iron pipes and assaulted on the deceased. However, there is no mention that which kind of blow has been given by the present appellant to the deceased. Learned advocate would further submit that cause of death has been kept pending by the doctors who have conducted autopsy of the body of the deceased. So even the medical officers are not confirmed about the cause of death of the deceased. Therefore, it is highly doubtful that the deceased has been died because of injuries which were alleged to have been caused by the appellant and other accused. He would further submit that perusal of the FIR would not indicate that on any vital part of the body of the deceased, injury was caused by the appellant. In addition to the above, learned advocate for the appellant would submit that investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed. Thus, entire evidence is in the safe hands of the prosecution. The appellant is ready and willing to abide by any condition which may be imposed by this Court while enlarging the accused on bail. Upon above submissions, learned advocate for the appellant seeks to grant regular bail to the present appellant.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Jay Shah for husband of complainant and learned APP for the respondent State have vociferously objected grant of this appeal seeking regular bail. The appellant has by iron pipe given blow on the different parts of body of the deceased which caused to death of the deceased which is indicated in the postmortem report. The heinous act of murder has been committed by the appellant which is noted in the FIR which is given by the deceased herself. Moreover, the deceased was beaten for the purpose of pressurizing her to withdraw the earlier criminal complaint. So the allegations indicate that appellant and other accused are highhanded persons. The charge-sheet filed in the offence indicates that the allegations made against the appellant are sufficiently taken and mer