IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10587 of 2022 ================================================================

SHAMBHUBHAI DEVRAJBHAI JARU Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ================================================================

Appearance:

MR VIVEK V BHAMARE(6710) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR VN BHAMARE(1122) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE(3267) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR RAHUL K DAVE(3978) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 03/08/2022

ORAL ORDER

1. The present successive application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with CR No.11205032210048 of 2021 registered with Mundra Police Station, Kutch for offence under Sections 302, 343, 114, 326, 330 and 331 of the Indian Penal Code and Section

135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. It is submitted that the applicant is Gram Rakshak Dal Javan, discharging duties at Mundra Police Station. It is submitted that he is not named in the FIR, but during the course of investigation, in a subsequent statement of the victims, name of the applicant is

NEUTRAL CITATION

undefined

2.1 It is submitted that the most relevant injured witness- Shamra Pabu Gadhavi, whose statement is relied upon, has not referred to the applicant in his four previous statements, but in the fifth statement recorded on 14.02.2021, role is attributed to the applicant of having inflicted injury. It is submitted that the applicant is a young man and trial is likely to consume a very long time. The applicant has cooperated with the investigation as well as trial and has never sought adjournment during the course of trial. However, trial has not progressed.

2.2 With regard to antecedents, it is submitted that the prosecution has cited four antecedents against the applicant, wherein the applicant has been acquitted.

3. As against this, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and learned Advocate for the original complainant have opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that it is a gross case of custodial death and two persons, who were sought to be falsely implicated in the offence to settle a land dispute, have died.

4. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that this case is of custodial death where three persons viz. Arjan, Harjog and Samara were arrested in an FIR registered for theft. The said FIR was

NEUTRAL CITATION

undefined

investigation of the offence of theft the aforesaid three persons were taken to the Mudra Police Station. It appears that while three persons were in custody of the police personnel, they have received serious injuries to the extent that Arjan and Harjog died on account of such injuries caused during the custodial interrogation and Injured Witness-Sharman has received serious injuries.

5. As per the investigation, in connection with the incident of house breaking at Samaghogha village, offence u/s-454, 457, 380 of IPC was registered on 28/12/2020 vide Part A CR no.1617/2020 at Mundra police station. In the aforementioned case, the deceased Arjan Gadhvi was brought on 12/01/2021, deceased Harjog Gadhvi and injured Shamra Gadhvi were brought on 16/01/2021 at the office of Mundra police station surveillance (D-staff) by the accused persons. In order to fulfill their common intention, the accused persons unlawfully kept them there till 19/01/2021. The accused police personnel have knowledge of the law and completely aware with the D.K.Basu judgment of the Supreme Court, yet they did not implement the same and t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document