The court emphasized evaluating contradictions in witness statements and the gravity of charges when considering bail applications.

ORDER :

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the Respondent-State.

2. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ) for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11192017240244 of 2024 registered with Detroj Police Station. Ahmedabad.

3. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent – State.

4. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant has good reputation in the society and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. Per contra, learned APP has vehemently opposed the present application for grant of regular bail contending that the present applicant had actively participated in commission of the offence in question as the present applicant was very much present at the scene of offence armed with a sword and as per statement of one of the witnesses, Jagatsinh Cheharsinh Jhala, the applicant had inflicted a blow with the said sword on the back of the head of the deceased which had resulted into the death of the deceased. He further submitted that though in the charge-sheet the applicant herein is attributed with a weapon like stick, however as per the statements of the eye witnesses, the applicant was also holding a sword at the time of incident. Learned APP therefore submitted that looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. From the record it appears that the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. The prosecution seeks to rely upon the police statement of the witness namely Jagatsinh Cheharsinh Jhala, who as per the case of prosecution, is the eye witness of the incident. The said witness in his police statement has categorically stated that the applicant was present at the scene of offence armed with a sword and had inflicted a blow with the said sword on the back of the deceased. However, the said witness has also given a statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, wherein the witness has stated that the applicant had given a blow with the sword on the right hand of the deceased. Upon perusal of the P.M. Note indicates that there is no injury shown on the right hand of the deceased. Thus, there is material contradiction in the version of eye witness given before police as well as before the Magistrate recorded under Section 183 statement of the BNSS. Considering the same, the application deserves consideration.

7. This court has considered the following aspects:

(a) As per catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, there are mainly 3 factors which are required to be considered by this court i.e. prima facie case, availability of Applicant accused at the time of trial and tampering and hampering with the witnesses by the accused.

(b) That the learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant Accused is not likely to flee away.

(c) That the Applicant is in custody since 9.7.2024.

(d) The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40.

8. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the record produced in this case as well as taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of accusation, availability of the Applicant Accused at the time of Trial etc. and the role attributed to the present Applicant accused, the present Application deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. This Court has also gone through the FIR and police papers and also the earlier order passed by the learned Sessions Court where the learned Sessions Judge h