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

AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 21219 of 2025 ==========================================================

MUKESH PUKHRAJ SONI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR ANIQ A KADRI(11256) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 02/12/2025

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 in connection with FIR being CR. No.11195016230065 of 2023 registered with Deesa Police Station, Banaskantha for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 294(b), 506(2), 114, 143, 147, 148, 149 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 135 of Gujarat Police Act.

2. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. I.H. Syed appearing with learned Advocate Mr. Aniq A. Kadri for the applicant. He submitted that the applicant had earlier preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.3257 of 2024 which was allowed to be withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 19.02.2024. While allowing the applicant to withdraw the said application, liberty was granted in favour of the applicant to file an application afresh after a period of Nine months and thus, the present application is filed by the applicant. In the interregnum, the other co-accused viz. Chetan Pukhrajbhai @ Prakashbhai Soni came to be considered for grant of bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court mainly on the ground of the period of incarceration undergone by him. The applicant has also undergone incarceration for a period of more than Two years and Six months. The prosecution has cited as many as 74 witnesses in the charge-sheet. Out of them, only seven witnesses have been examined during the course of trial. Therefore, there is no possibility of trial concluding in the near future. He further submitted that the provision of Section 149 of IPC is also invoked by prosecution against the accused persons, and therefore, the individual role played by each of the accused would be of no significance and all the accused persons would be equally responsible for committing the offence in question. Therefore, when other co-accused are granted bail, the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail irrespective of role attributed to him. He, therefore, submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions.

3. Learned APP has opposed the present application contending that the applicant is the main accused and he had inflicted a blow with scythe on the head of the deceased which had proved to be fatal. Moreover, when the Hon’ble Apex Court was considering the application filed by the other co- accused, it was misled to believe that out of Nine accused, eight accused persons have been released on bail which is an incorrect statement. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the application.

4. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the applicant had earlier preferred CRMA No.3257 of 2024 which was allowed to be withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 19.02.2024. However, liberty came to be granted in favour of the application to file an application after a period of Nine months and thus, the present application is filed by the applicant.

5. So far as the role attributed to the applicant in commission of the present offence is concerned, it is to the effect that the present applicant is the main accused in the offence in question. On the fateful day, when the deceased and other eye witnesses were passing on the road, they were intercepted by the present applicant and the other co-accused because of previous enmity, and thereafter, a brutal assault was made upon the deceased as well as the other witnesses. The