The court ruled that anticipatory bail was denied due to the serious nature of the allegations and the need for the applicant to prove his alibi at trial.

ORAL ORDER

1. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for anticipatory bail in connection with F.I.R.

No.11216025240492 of 2024 registered with Santej Police Station, District Gandhinagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 189(2),

189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 118(1), 117(2),

115(2), 324(4), 324(5), 352, 651(3) and 54 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 25(1-b)(a) of Arms Act, 1959 and Section 135 G. P. Act, 1951 .

2. Learned advocate Mr. Siddharth Kheskani appearing for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant along with other co-accused is alleged to have committed offence punishable under Section 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) along with other allied offences and out of offences alleged against the present applicant, only offence punishable under Section 109 of BNS is non-bailable offence whereas other offences are bailable. He has further submitted that the present applicant has been sought to be falsely implicated in the present offence though the present applicant was not present at the scene of offence at the time of incident and in fact, the present applicant had gone to Surat prior to the incident and was present at Surat when the incident had taken place. The relevant material has been placed on record in that regard. He has further submitted that the only role attributed to the present applicant is to the effect that he had given some blows with stick on lower limb of the victim which had not resulted into serious injuries to the victim. He has further submitted that the victim has been discharged from the hospital. The applicant has no other antecedents. He has, therefore submits that considering the nature of offence and role attributed to the applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions.

3. The learned APP appearing for the respondent State vehemently submits that the offences alleged against the present applicant is serious in nature. He further submits that the allegations which have been charged, are serious in nature and looking to the facts as well as the allegations made against the applicant, no discretion should be exercised.

4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents produced on record.

5. It appears from the record that as per the averments made in the F.I.R., the present applicant and other co-accused had assaulted the victim. The role attributed to the present applicant is to the effect that the present applicant had assaulted the victim with stick in his hand. It is the case on behalf of the applicant that the applicant was not present at the scene of offence at that time of incident and was present elsewhere. However, the fact remains that the specific role is attributed in the F.I.R. which has been lodged by the eye-witness to the incident. Moreover, alibi being the defense of the applicant, the same is required to be proved by the applicant by leading cogent material at the stage of trial.

6. Having regard to these facts, this Court is not inclined to use its judicial discretion in favour of the applicant. The application is dismissed.

(M. R. MENGDEY,J) NABILA