The court ruled that the presence and active participation of the accused in the crime, supported by witness testimonies, justified the denial of bail despite claims of false implication.

ORDER :

1. The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhit, 2023, for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.NO. 11191015240503 of 2024 registered with Nikol Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 189, 189(2), 115(2) and 296(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that in present offence, the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. The present applicant has been falsely implicated in the present offence. The applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 09.12.2024 and since then he is in custody.

2.1 Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that there is a material available in the form of CCTV footage, which indicates that the applicant had entered the society, wherein the incident alleged in the FIR had taken place after the incident was over and his presence at the scene of offence was for a very short while. The applicant has not played any active role in commission of the offence in question.

2.2 Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that the witnesses upon whom the prosecution seeks to rely upon are either relatives of the deceased or the friends of the first informant. There are no independent witnesses to the present incident, and therefore, the statements of these witnesses are not reliable.

2.3 Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that the story of the case of prosecution is highly unreliable. He, therefore, submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the present applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions.

3. Learned APP has opposed the present application, inter alia, contending that the applicant was very much present at the scene of offence and had actively participated in commission of the offence in question. The applicant herein had inflicted kicks and fist blows upon the deceased, which had resulted into his death.

3.1 Learned APP has submitted that there are witnesses to the incident, who had seen the incident and in their statements, they have categorically stated the role played by the present applicant in commission of the offence in question. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the first informant has opposed the present application, inter alia, contending that the applicant herein had made a telephonic call to the first informant at about 7.30 p.m. i.e. few hours prior to the incident and a threat was administered by the applicant to the first informant, which indicates that there was an intention on the part of the applicant of committing the offence.

4.1 Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the first informant has submitted that the applicant herein had inflicted kicks and fist blows to the deceased, which had contributed to the death of the deceased. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application.

5. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the material available on record. As per the case of prosecution, the dispute had occurred between the parties on the issue of parking of a car. The material available on record indicates that the co-accused viz. Vicky had telephoned the first informant some time prior to the incident alleged in the FIR and in the said phone call, the said co-accused Vicky had threatened the first informant, and thereafter, the first informant went to his car where the alleged incident has taken place. He was initially assaulted by the co-accused with a mortar, and thereafter, when the deceased, who happens to be the father of the first informant, intervened to rescue the first informant, he was also brutally assaulted by the accused persons. Initially, the assault was made by the other co-accused viz. Vicky, and thereafter, once he fell down, the applicant herein had al