The court ruled that absence of direct evidence does not negate the applicability of Section 149 IPC and that suspension of sentence post-conviction requires clear justification beyond lack of prior bail misuse.

ORDER :

P. M. RAVAL, J.

1. Criminal Misc. Application (Regular Bail) No.1 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal No.1178 of 2024 is preferred by Ayar Tejabhai Bhalabhai Vashrambhai – original accused No.4 through jail, Criminal Misc. Application (for suspension of sentence) No.3 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No.1178 of 2024 is preferred by Ayar Devayatbhai Raimalbhai Bhalabhai – original accused No.3 and Ayar Arjanbhai@ Ajabhai Tejabhai Bhalabhai – original accused No.5, whereas Criminal Misc. Application (for suspension of sentence) No.4 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No.1178 of 2024 is preferred by Ayar Babubhai Raimalbhai Bhalabhai – original accused No.1. All these applications are preferred by the applicants – original accused for suspension of sentence imposed vide judgment and order dated 15.5.2024 in Sessions Case No.33 of 2019 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patan at Radhanpur for various offences as follows:

and Rs.5000/- each as compensation to be paid to Ratnabhai Malabhai Ahir and Kanabhai Devrajbhai Ahir and in default thereof, to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. All the aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently and as per the Gujarat Victims Compensation Scheme 2019, the compensation of Rs.5000/- is to be paid to the heirs of deceased Ayar Malabhai Bhurabhai.

2. The applicant - Ayar Tejabhai Bhalabhai Vashrambhai – original accused No.4 has preferred Criminal Misc. Application (Regular Bail) No.1 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal No.1178 of 2024 through jail inter alia contending that all the family members of the present accused are in jail and his wife as well as minor children have no source of income and are indebted and has prayed for suspension of sentence. It is also contended that the applicant is a senior citizen aged about 60 years and that the applicant be released on bail by taking lenient view and that there is no evidence of last seen together or eye witness. That the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. That there is no dying declaration and hence, it is prayed for releasing him on bail.

3. So far as Criminal Misc. Application (for suspension of sentence) No.3 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No.1178 of 2024 is concerned, the same is preferred by Ayar Devayatbhai Raimalbhai Bhalabhai – original accused No.3 and Ayar Arjanbhai@ Ajabhai Tejabhai Bhalabhai – original accused No.5. It is argued by learned advocate Mr.Yash Nanavati appearing for the applicants – original accused Nos.3 and 5 that only role attributed to applicant No.3 is of holding knife, whereas against accused No.5 is of holding tomy and injuring PW 10. He has argued that considering the deposition of the Doctor, he has clearly stated in his cross examination that injuries to the deceased which were fatal in nature, more particularly, injury Nos.1 and 2 cannot be inflicted by knife and has thus, argued to allow the present application.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Yash Nanavati has further argued that considering the deposition of Dr.Krunal Rameshbhai Patel – PW 2, the specific cause of death is because of injury upon head and lower limb. However, none of the injuries are attributed to the applicants and has thus argued that in absence of any injury caused by the applicants to the deceased, the sentence be suspended. It is further argued that none of the witnesses have attributed any injury to the applicants and hence, no offence under section 302 of IPC can be said to be committed by the applicants. It is further argued that crucial witness i.e. Momayabhai @ Mayur Malabhai Ahir who happens to be the son of the deceased and brother of the first informant has not supported t