IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -

AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 2888 of 2025 ==========================================================

AAKASH @ AAKIYA @ GOJYA MOHANBHAI BAVISKAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR GAJENDRA P BAGHEL(2968) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR SHAMBHUKUMAR(13426) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR HK PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 11/02/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

2. The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11210047242088 of 2024 registered with Udhna Police Station, Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 54 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) / The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Section 135 of the GP Act.

3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and he is falsely implicated in the offence. The impugned FIR was lodged after a delay of one day. Initially, the case was recorded as an accident (A.D. No. 10/2024 under Section 194 of B.N.S.), as the deceased suffered a fatal injury by striking his hand against an autorickshaw’s glass, resulting in a cut vein and excessive bleeding. Subsequently, during the investigation, it was alleged that the applicant, along with co- accused Avinash @ Vikki, was present at Building No. 34, where a quarrel broke out. The applicant allegedly struck the deceased with a wooden log, and Avinash pushed him, causing him to collide with the autorickshaw’s glass, leading to the fatal injury. However, there was no intention or knowledge that their actions would result in death. Eyewitness Hiren Suryakant Jadav confirmed that both accused tried to help the deceased by pulling his hand out of the broken glass and calling for medical assistance. The post-mortem report indicates that the injuries were simple and consistent with those caused by a wooden log. It is further submitted that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be granted regular bail with the imposition of suitable conditions.

4. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that there is no dispute that the applicant inflicted a wooden log on the deceased. During the scufÒe, the co-accused pushed the deceased, causing him to collide with the autorickshaw's glass. As a result, the deceased's right hand entered the glass, severing a vein, leading to excessive bleeding and ultimately his death.

Therefore, the present application may be dismissed.

5. While granting bail, the Court has to consider the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and the following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses and threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations are required to be considered.

6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective part