ORAL ORDER

1. This application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for grant of regular bail to the applicant in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.11211010210108 of 2021 registered with Chuda Police Station, Dist. Surendranagar, for the offence punishable under Sections

302 and 120 (b) of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short).

2. Heard Mr.Virat Popat, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Manan Mehta, learned APP for the State.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of present application are that, FIR is lodged on 03.08.2021 at Chuda Police Station against the principal accused Ajit Kalabhai, stating therein that, when the deceased Ranubhai Merubhai passing on rough road going towards village Bhanejada was fatally hit by Xylo car, alleged to have been driven by principal accused Ajitbhai, with an intention to kill him. The motive was to take revenge of murder of one Mansukhbhai Kadvabhai, who happened to be the uncle of principal accused as Mansukhbhai was killed by the deceased and others. The principal accused apprehended in the alleged offence as against him sufÏcient evidence involving the act of murder is found. During the investigation, upon analysis of call details of the main accused, it was revealed that, on the day of incident, they made conversation thrice and as per the prosecution case, the main accused had called the present applicant and directed to give some input with regard to movement of the deceased and therefore, the applicant being a part of criminal conspiracy hatched by the principal accused to kill the deceased, investigating agency apprehended the applicant in the alleged offence. In such circumstance, the principal accused Ajitbhai and applicant herein chargesheeted for the aforesaid offence. Regular bail application of the applicant filed before the Sessions Court came to be rejected vide order dated 08.06.2022. Aggrieved with the impugned order, present application has been preferred before this Court.

4. Learned counsel Mr. Virat Popat for the applicant submitted that, it is the case of prosecution that, main accused Ajitbhai had intention and motive to murder the deceased as deceased was accused in murder of Mansukhbhai Kadvabhai, who was uncle of the principal accused and therefore, to take revenge, speeding xylo vehicle was dashed with the deceased when he was passing on the road as referred in the FIR and the vehicle was driven by the principal accused. He further submitted that, the allegation levelled against the applicant to the effect that the main accused called the applicant and instructed to watch the movement of the deceased, for which they were in touch on their cell phones. It is in this background facts, he submitted that, the applicant and principal accused being resident of the same village are known to each other and therefore, their conversations on mobile phones would not infer that, the applicant was part of the criminal conspiracy hatched by the main accused, as there is no material worth the name to indicate that, in any manner, the applicant was involved in execution of the alleged conspiracy to kill the deceased. He further submitted that, the applicant was neither present at the scene of offence, nor in any way found in the CCTV footage and nor his name has been disclosed by the complainant. Thus, placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jayendra Saraswathi Swamingal Vs. State of T.N [2005 (2) SCC 13], to submit that, merely a statement of the principal accused involving the applicant which is weak piece of evidence, cannot be used against the accused.

5. In view of the aforesaid contentions, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that, the applicant is totally innocent and has been falsely involved in the present case and keeping him behind the bar would nothing, but a pre-trial punishment and therefore, considering the role attributed to the applicant herein, discretion may kindly be exercised in favour of the ap