ORAL ORDER

1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.11191048212301 of 2021 registered with Sarkhej Police Station, District Ahmedabad for the offences under Sections 365, 386, 143, 144, 149, 323, 324, 114, 506(2) and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”) and under Section 135 (1) of the Gujarat Police Act.

2. The aforesaid F.I.R came to be registered alleging that on 24.12.2021, the accused had formed an unlawful assembly, and abducted the first informant in an Innova car, and thereafter took him to different places, and when they reached near K.D. Party Plot at Sarkhej, in open space, the applicant inflicted the knife blow on the left hand of the first informant, and verbally and physically abused him. It is further alleged that thereafter, the first informant was taken to his ofÏce, and thereby was forcefully constrained to deliver four cheques worth Rs.80,00,000/- and he had also handed over cash of Rs.3,00,000/- to the applicant.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Nair appearing for the applicant has submitted that except the statements of the co-accused, the investigation does not reveal that the present applicant is anyway connected in the offence. In support of his submissions, learned advocate has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Chaudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2022 (1) Crimes 436 (SC). He has submitted that the call records do not in any manner reveal that the applicant was present along with the co-accused father i.e. accused No.1, on the day of the incident. It is further submitted that the first informant has falsely implicated the present applicant in the offence on account of son of the accused No.1. It is also submitted that thus, the custodial interrogation of the present applicant would not be needed as the entire case of the prosecution depends upon the statement of the co-accused.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Raval, has submitted that the investigation reveals that the present applicant has played an equal role that of his father for committing the offence. He has submitted that the applicant, in fact, had assaulted the first informant and he was forcefully dragged in the car, in which, the accused No.1 – his father was there and thereafter, he has forcibly taken the first informant to various places and he was forced to give a cheque of Rs.20 lacs, which was handed over by the present applicant to his wife. It is submitted that the applicant was present at the scene of the offence and he has conspired for the abducting the first informant in order to recover the money and during such abduction, the accused No.1 had given knife blows to the first informant.

4.1 It is submitted that the investigation further reveals that one of the co-accused had called other co-accused from Porbandar in order to abduct the first informant and an i-20 car, having registration No.GJ-01-KZ-1516, was also used by the present applicant with one co-accused Ashokbhai which is yet to be recovered and the whereabouts of the same is not given by the present applicant. It is further submitted that the co-accused Ashokbhai is still absconding and yet to be arrested.

4.2 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted that the accused No.1 Ashokbhai, after the incident had handed over the cheques of Rs.80 lacs and cash of Rs.3 lacs and has given Rs.3 lacs to the accused who was called from Probandar. All the cheques collected from this first informant was handed over to the present applicant and the wife of the applicant Zeel Patel had deposited the aforesaid chqeue in the account of accused No.1 Ashokbhai Jayantibhai Patel, in the Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank), Sola Branch in the Account No.21202747060.

4.3 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted that the statement of the wi