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

2024 Supreme(Guj) 773

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Divyesh A. Joshi, J.
Pravin @ Popat Vitthalbhai Thakor - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Gujarat - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Application No. 5025, 5283 of 2024
Decided On : 02-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. KJ Panchal
For the Respondent: Mr. LB Dabhi APP.

IMPORTANT POINT
The severity of the offence, the nature of the accusation, and the supporting evidence are crucial factors in determining whether a bail application should be granted.

Headnote:

Regular Bail - Murder Offence - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Indian Penal Code, Indian Evidence Act, Gujarat Police Act - The court discussed the involvement of the accused in a serious offence of murder, the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, and the supporting evidence. It highlighted the use of circumstantial evidence, the motive behind the crime, and the link between the accused and the commission of the crime. The court also considered the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in similar cases and concluded that it was not a fit case for bail.

Fact of the Case:

The applicants sought regular bail in connection with a murder case where they were accused of hatching a criminal conspiracy to eliminate the deceased, based on circumstantial evidence and witness statements.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution had proved the link between the accused and the crime through circumstantial evidence, witness statements, and the motive behind the crime. It also considered the severity of the punishment and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in similar cases.

Issues: The severity of the offence, the involvement of the accused, the nature of the accusation, and the supporting evidence were the key issues before the court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, and the supporting evidence, and applied the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court to determine whether it was a fit case for bail.

Final Decision: The court rejected the bail applications, emphasizing that it was not a fit case for bail, based on the severity of the offence, the complicity of the applicants, and the settled case law.

ORDER :

1. Both these applications are filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11204065230073/2023 registered with the Vaso Police Station, Kheda for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

2. Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the so-called incident has taken place for the period between 20.04.2023 to 21.04.2023, for which, the FIR has been lodged on 21.04.2023 and the applicants have been arrested in connection with the same on 22.04.2023 and since then, they are in judicial custody. Learned advocate submitted that now the investigation is completed and after submission of the chargesheet, the present application is preferred. Learned advocate submitted that entire case of the prosecution hinges upon circumstantial evidence and nobody has witnessed the incident. Learned advocate submitted that during the course of investigation, the discovery panchnama of the weapon used in the commission of crime drawn under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was by the concerned IO and at that relevant point of time, certain revealing facts have been disclosed by the co-accused. Learned advocate submitted that entire sequence of events of incident narrated by the co-accused before the IO at the time of drawing discovery panchnama clearly goes on to show that the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.5025/2024 had mutilated the head of the deceased and the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.5283/2024 had killed the deceased. Learned advocate submitted that if the Hon’ble Court would make a cursorily glance upon the contents of the said panchnama, it is clearly stated that the murder was committed by the main accused and the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.5283/2024 and at that relevant point of time, the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.5025/2024 was not found available at the place of occurrence and after commission of crime, he had supported the main accused in mutilating the head of the deceased, therefore at the most, it can be said that the role of the present applicant is falling under the definition of Section 201 of the IPC, which provides ‘Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender’ and maximum punishment, which can be imposed, is upto seven years. Learned advocate submitted that in fact, the involvement of the applicants are found out on the strength of the statement of the co-accused while drawing panchnama while he was in judicial custody and, hence, the said statement cannot be said to be admissible in law and it can be said to be a weak piece of evidence and cannot be taken into consideration at the time of leading evidence and also cannot be considered in case of co- accused. Learned advocate submitted that other co- accused have been considered by this Court.

3. Learned advocate submitted that so far as the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.5283/2024 is concerned, there is no specific role attributed to the said applicant – accused. Learned advocate submitted that there is no recovery or discovery pending at the instance of the present applicant – accused. It is, therefore, urged that considering the nature of the offence, the role attributed to the present applicants and on the ground of parity, the applicants may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

4. Learned APP for the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that the role of the present applicant is clearly spelt out from the papers of the chargesheet. Learned APP submitted that initially FIR is field against unknown persons but subsequently during the course of investigation, the name and specific role of the accused persons have been revealed and on the strength of the said material coll

          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