An applicant seeking bail in serious criminal cases must demonstrate substantial grounds for release; mere presence at the scene may not suffice.

ORAL ORDER

1. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail.

2. The FIR being C.R. No. 11191015240370 of 2024 is registered with Nikol Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offence under Sections 302, 143, 148, 149, 324, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act.

3. Heard learned Senior Advocate for the Applicant, learned APP for the Respondent- State and leanred Advocate appearing on behalf of the Original Complainant.

4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. I.H.Syed appearing for the Applicant has submitted that in the present offence, the investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed. As per the case of the prosecution, the role attributed to the present Applicant is of inflicting a blow with an iron pipe on the head of the deceased. The other co-accused who are similarly situated to the present Applicant had approached this Court and this Court had considered their case for grant of Regular Bail considering the fact that in the CCTV Footages the co-accued were not seen inflicting any blow on the deceased. Similarly, what is seen in the CCTV Footages is that the Applicant was merely present at the scene of offence armed with an iron pipe. The Applicant is also not seen inflicting any blow on the body of the deceased. He submitted that the relevant photographs of the CCTV Footages have also been placed on record and in those photographs also the Applicant is not seen inflicting any blow on the deceased. Learned Senior Advocate for the Applicant has further submitted that the Applicant has good reputation in the society and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for an indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. Per contra, learned APP has opposed the present application for grant of regular bail contending that the present Applicant is the main accused in the present case. The Applicant had inflicted a blow with an iron pipe on the head of the deceased which had resulted into his death. He further submitted that the weapon which was used by the present Applicant in commission of the offence was discovered by the present Applicant and the blood of ‘A’ group was found from the said iron pipe. The blood group of the deceased was also ‘A’. He further submitted that an eyewitness Surekhaben has categorically named the present Applicant having assaulted the deceased with an iron pipe. Learned APP has therefore submitted that looking to the nature of offence, this Court may not exercise discretion in favour of the applicant and the Application may be dismissed.

6. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Original Complainant has also opposed the Application contending that the it was the present Applicant who had assaulted the deceased with an iron pipe and had given a blow on his head. The Applicant is the main accused in the present offence. It is therefore prayed to dismiss the present Application.

7. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. From the material available on record, it appears that the present Applicant was having an affair with an eyewitness Surekhaben. After having an affair for some time, the said Surekhaben had discontinued her relations with the present Applicant and therefore the present Applicant used to visit the shop of the said Surekhaben and her husband and would threaten them. The deceased tried to intervene to convince the present Applicant not to do so.

7.1 On the fateful day also the present Applicant had gone to the shop of the said Surekhaben and her husband