Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 4096
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J
PRAKASH BHIMJI BERA (PATEL) – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1621 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: BANSI M KARIA, NISHITH P ACHARYA
For the Respondents: MS CM SHAH
Insufficient evidence against the appellant warrants bail in a murder conspiracy case.
Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14 A - Bail application - Appeal filed after charge-sheet submission for regular bail in murder conspiracy case - No evidence directly linking the appellant to the offence except for logistic support; lack of independent material and reliance on co-accused's statements result in granting bail. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 9)
(B) Appeal process - The discretion in granting bail considers the strength of evidence against the appellant and is not merely a procedural formality. (Paras 5, 8)
Facts of the case:
Charges of conspiracy and murder raised against the appellant based primarily on call data records and co-accused statements without strong independent evidence were highlighted.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to substantiate the appellant's involvement in the conspiracy, warranting the grant of bail.
Issues: The key issue was whether the involvement of the appellant could be established based on existing evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that prima facie evidence is insufficient to deny bail if substantial evidence is lacking.
Result: Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's procedure and attendance. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. bail application filed under specific act. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments regarding the strength of evidence. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. evaluation of evidence and appellant's involvement. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 5. court's ruling on bail and implications. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
ORDER
1. Mr.Bhavin Thaker, learned advocate submitted that Mr.D.H.Kanthariya, learned advocate has instructions to appear for Respondent No.2 and he seeks time as Mr.Kanthariya, learned advocate has filed sick note. However, as recorded in the order dated 30.11.2021, notice of admission was served upon Respondent No.2 on that day. However, it must have been served even prior to the endorsement found on the cause list and information is supplied by the office that it has already been served on 30.11.2021. It is further recorded in the order that Respondent No.2 is neither present in person nor through an advocate. Today also, the first informant is neither present nor any appearance on behalf of him is filed by any of the advocate. Mere mentioning the matter seeking time on behalf of first informant who was served long back and trying to delay the hearing of this matter cannot be entertained. Hence, request to adjourn this case as Mr.Kanthariya, learned advocate having instructions to appear for Respondent No.2 is hereby refused.
2. Heard Mr.Nishith Acharya, learned advocate for the appellant as also Ms.C.M.Shah, learned APP for the Respondent- State.
3. This Appeal is filed under Section 14 A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) praying for an order of regular bail post submission of charge- sheet in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11993010200842 of 2021 registered with Rapar Police Station for an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 135 of Gujarat Police Act and under Section 3(2)(v) of ‘the Act’.
4. Mr.Acharya, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that except the statement of co-accused involving the present appellant, that too, providing logistic support to the main accused making arraignment to drop him from Rapar to Samakhiyali, there is no evidence found against him showing involvement of him either in the conspiracy or offence of murder. He has further submitted that despite he is not named in the First Information Report, he has been sought to be involved in this case on the basis of the statement of the co- accused. The only material attempted to be brought on record against the accused is in the form of call data records to establish that appellant is a part of conspiracy and he has committed the crime. Therefore, he has prayed for an order of regular bail post submission of charge-sheet.
5. Ms.C.M.Shah, learned APP submitted that case is of conspiracy where the deceased has been murdered by accused No.1 shown in the charge-sheet and present appellant has dropped the assailant of an offence on the say of co-accused from Rapar to Samakhiyali on the bike. She has further submitted that from the CDR, it is clear that he was in constant touch with the accused No.2 shown in the charge-sheet and therefore, his involvement in the case is established and therefore, he may be refused the bail.
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the appearing parties and perusing the papers of investigation as also charge- sheet which is annexed with the appeal, it is clear that except providing logistic support of dropping the assailant of an offence from Rapar to Samakhiyali coupled with the fact of call data record establishing that the appellant is in touch with accused No.2 of the charge-sheet, the appellant cannot be concluded to be a part of conspiracy, that too, for an offence of muder. At best, he can be prosecuted for some other offence, if at all made out.
7. At the
