Gujarat High Court
Satish Sureshbhai Dhadge vs State Of Gujarat on 19 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16433/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
CHARGESHEET) NO. 16433 of 2023
==========================================================
SATISH SURESHBHAI DHADGE
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AMIT D SHAH(11232) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS KHUSHBU R SHAH(11864) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS JAYSHREE C BHATT(170) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HK PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 19/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] By way of present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1937 (for short "CrPC"), the applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with FIR being CR No.11210012200241 of 2020 registered with Chowk Bazar Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 120(B), 452, 450 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act.
[2.0] Heard learned advocate Mr. Dhruwin Mehta for learned advocate Mr. Amit D. Shah for the applicant, learned advocate Ms. Jayshree Bhatt for the original complainant and learned APP for respondent - State of Gujarat.
[3.0] Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. The applicant is behind the bars since last 4 years and still the trial is going on and there are total 106 witnesses. Further, all the material witnesses have turned hostile and there is not a single evidence which Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 02:15:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16433/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025 undefined suggests the involvement of the present applicant. Even, the co- accused Rahul having similar role is released on regular bail by the learned Sessions Judge and therefore, applicant is entitled to benefit of parity. Further, conclusion of trial will take its own time and applicant is not having any past antecedent as he has been acquitted in connection with offence under Section 302 of the IPC. He has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. and Anr. rendered in Criminal Appeal No.152/2020 and submitted that merely having a past antecedent is not a ground to refuse bail. Hence, he has requested to allow the present application.
[4.0] Learned advocate Ms. Jayshree Bhatt for the original complainant has submitted that as the witnesses have turned hostile and disputed is settled between the parties, upon instructions, she stated that complainant has no objection if the applicant is granted bail.
[5.0] Opposing the submissions made by the learned advocates for the applicant and the original complainant, learned APP has submitted that the alleged offence is serious one as the applicant is facing charge under Sections 302, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 120(B), 452, 541 and 201 of the IPC read with Sectino 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act. Further, the trial is in progress and if the applicant is released on bail then he may hamper or tamper with the evidence. Applicant has indulged in serious offence of murder and even prior to the present offence, applicant had indulged in offence under Section 302 of the IPC and one under the Arms Act and having three past antecedents of serious offences. Nonetheless, present applicant hatched consipracy with the co-accused and armed with knife made an assault to the Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 02:15:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16433/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025 undefined complainant alongwith the co-accused and presence of applicant is also recorded in the CCTV footage and he was in constant touch with the accused No.1, who has subsequently succumbed to death as he was also injured. Hence, prima facie involvement of the applicant is there and at this stage appreciation of evidence is not permisible and merely because witnesses have turned hostile is not a ground to consider the present application.
[5.1] So far as argument canvassed by learned advocate as regards benefit of parity is concerned, learned APP has submitted that the allegation against the co-accused who has been granted bail was that he was sitting outside the office of the deceased and no any overt act was attributed. So far as co-accused Rahul is concerned, it appears that he is similarly situated to the present applicant and the learned Sessions Judge has considered his application but prima facie perverse and findings contrary to record are recorded and this Court is not bound to follow the said findings. Hence, he has requested to independently consider the role of the present applicant as benefit of parity cannot be granted to the present applicant and as sufficient material is collected during the investigation and present applicant is a headstrong person, if released on bail, it may adversely affect the prosecution case as the trial is in progress. Therefore, he has requested to dismiss the present application.
[6.0] Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the investigation papers.
[7.0] Perusing the complaint which is filed by one Amol Tukarambhai Jine who happens to be the friend of deceased Suresh @ Suriya Marathi Pawar who was also put on trial alongwith deceased and other persons in the year 2016 for the offence punishable under Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 02:15:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16433/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025 undefined Section 302 of the IPC and was acquitted. On 12.02.2020, when the deceased Suriya Marathi alongwith his aid - gang members was sitting in the office and at that time, at approximately 1 p.m., accused (1) Hardik, (2) Sahil, (3) Vikdi, (4) present applicant and (5) Rahul @ Apartment and two unknown persons i.e. total 7 persons came to the office of Suriya Marathi and at that time present applicant alongwith accused No.1 Hardik (deceased) having knife and having made an assault to Suriya Marathi and accused persons have made assault. During the said scuffle, accused No.1 Hardik also sustained injuries and was shifted to hospital however died during the treatment. Further, it is alleged that when the deceased Suriya was in the jail and released on parole, during the festival of Navratri, deceased Suriya indulged in eve-teasing of Nainaben, who happens to be the wife of accused No.1 - Hardik. While Suriya was acquitted in connection with the said offence, as a part of criminal conspiracy, accused persons have hatched the conspiracy and forming unlawful assembly in furtherance of common intention armed with deadly weapons came to the office of deceased Suriya and trespassing the said premises, they have made an assault on the deceased. In this regard the FIR came to be filed.
[7.1] During the investigation, sufficient material to establish the conspiracy is collected. Presence of applicant armed with knife is found and noticed in the CCTV footage. After the commission of offence, applicant and co-accused fled away from the spot and they have destroyed the evidence and threw away the weapons used in the commission of crime and their cloths in the river Tapi and Narmada. Subsequently, the accused were arrested. CCTV footage and DVR is also seized by the police during investigation and received certificate issued under Section 65(B) of the Evidence Act and even the FSL has Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 02:15:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16433/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025 undefined also examined the said CCTV footages and the identify of the accused persons came to be confirmed by the witness. Thus, sufficient material is collected which suggests the involvement of present applicant. The applicant is also facing the charge under Section 120(B) of the IPC for which CDR is also collected to establish the conspiracy and thereafter in the CCTV footage, presence of applicant is found at Surat.
[8.0] Further, learned advocate for the applicant has mainly argued to release the applicant on bail on the ground of delay in trial as the applicant is in jail since last four years. Perusing the record it appears that due to non-engaging of an Advocate by the accused, trial was protracted and also there was non-cooperation on the part of accused. In such circumstances, accused is also not entitled to the benefit of either section 436A of the CrPC or section 479 of the BNSS on two counts i.e. applicant having two similar nature of past antecedents and considering delay in trial due to non-cooperation on the part of accused however, after passing of order by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in August, 2023, trial is in progress and a report dated 25.09.2024 is submitted by the then learned Sessions Judge to this Court wherein total schedule is provided by the concerned APP and the Court wherein progress report is also produced on the record and perusing the said report, it clearly appears that prosecution wants to examine only 72 witnesses out of total 106 witnesses and list of relevant witnesses is also produced on record and as per the schedule, trial is in progress. As per the said report, it appears that recording of evidence is going to conclude on 05.06.2025. Thus, trial is in progress and whatever anticipation raised by the learned advocate for the applicant with regard to protracting of trial is ill-founded.
[9.0] Now, coming back to the argument canvassed by the
Page 5 of 15
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 02:15:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16433/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
learned advocate for the applicant that trial is not concluded though applicant is behind the bars since last four years is concerned, once the trial Court is in the process of recording the evidence then it is not permissible to appreciate the evidence and to enlarge the accused on bail and that too in such serious offence under Section 302 of the IPC. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2024 INSC 909. Further, so far as the apprehension on the part of applicant that trial will be delayed is concerned, there is no such possibility in view of the report submitted by the learned APP before this Court containing entire schedule of examination of witnesses from which it appears that trial is going to be concluded in June, 2025 and therefore also, if the applicant is released on bail at the fag end of the trial then possibility of tampering with the evidence cannot be ruled out as the applicant is having past antecedents and is a headstrong person and member of syndicate and facing serious charge and that too for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC though the learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that in connection with Sessions Case Nos.75/2019 and 53/2013 in connection with offence under Sectino 302 of the IPC, the witnesses have turned hostile and benefit of doubt is extended to the applicant and further in Sessions Case No.292/2015 in connection with offence under Section 307 of the IPC the witnesses have turned hostile and prosecution has not brough on record the evidence of Taufiq Shaikh and panch witnesses are also not examined by the prosecution and the witnesses who were examined have turned hostile and as the applicant was facing charge under the Arms Act also, no permission of District Magistrate was produced on record. Considering the aforesaid fact, applicant is acquitted based on peculiar facts of the said cases but the fact remains that the applicant - accused has potentiality to Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 02:15:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16433/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025 undefined influence the witnesses and learned advocate for the complainant has given consent to release the applicant on bail and witnesses have turned hostile and it is needless to say that the offence is not against an individual but is against the society.
[10.0] Further, learned advocate for the applicant has requested to consider the application of present applicant on the ground that, present applicant is acquitted in the case concerning offences under Section 302 of the IPC and witnesses have turned hostile but it is needless to say that perusing the record, it appears that panch witnesses have turned hostile and even if other witnesses have turned hostile is not ground to consider the bail application because at the time of deciding bail application, appreciation of evidence is not permissible insofar as argument of witnesses turned hostile is concerned. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zahira Habibulla Sheikh (5) vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2006)3 SCC 374 wherein it has been held that crime being public wrong in breach and violation of public rights and duties, which affect the whole community as a community and are harmful to the society in general. It is also apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh and Others vs. State of Haryana reported in (2017) 1 SCC 529 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the culture of compromise and effect of hostile witnesses in criminal trial and observed that merely the "culture of compromise" during the trial is not a ground for acquittal. It is becoming a common phenomenon, almost a regular feature, that in criminal cases witnesses turn hostile. There could be various reasons for this behaviour or attitude of the witnesses. It is possible that when the statements of such witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC by the police during Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 02:15:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16433/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025 undefined investigation, the Investigating Officer forced them to make such statements and, therefore, they resiled therefrom while deposing in the Court and justifiably so. However, this is no longer the reason in most of the cases. This trend of witnesses turning hostile is due to various other factors. It may be fear of deposing against the accused/delinquent or political pressure or pressure of other family members or other such sociological factors. It is also possible that witnesses are corrupted with monetary considerations. On the analysis of various cases, the reasons that can be discerned which make witnesses retracting their statements before the court and turning hostile, are (i) Threat / intimidation; (ii) Inducement by various means; (iii) Use of muscle and money power by the accused; (iv) Use of stock witnesses; (v) Protracted trials; (vi) Hassles faced by the witnesses during investigation and trial and (vii) Non-existence of any clear-cut legislation to check hostility of witness Even, a significant reason for witnesses turning hostile may be what is described as 'culture of compromise'. During the trial, compromise acts as a tool in the hands of defence lawyers and the accused to pressurise complainants and victims to change their testimonies in a courtroom also. Merely because the witnesses have turned hostile is not a ground to allow the present application. Reference is also required to be made to the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Selvamani vs. State Rep. By the Inspector of Police reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 837.
[11.0] Now, coming back to the argument as regards applicant being entitled to get the benefit of parity is concerned, other co- accused are released by the coordinate Bench of this Court as they were part of conspiracy and another Sessions Judge has elaborately Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 02:15:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16433/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025 undefined discussed their roles and declined to extend the benefit of parity to the present applicant as they were only sitting outside the office and no any overt act is attributed or they have not been found in participation of assault and they were member of syndicate of deceased but subsequently they have provided information qua whereabouts of the deceased to the accused persons. Except informing about the whereabouts of the deceased, no role is attributed to the said co-accused and hence, under the pretext of Shafi Mehmood and other accused being considered by the coordinate Bench is not a ground to allow the present application or extend the benefit of parity.
[12.0] Now, coming back to the argument of the learned advocate for the applicant that co-accused Rahul @ Apartment is similarly situated to the present applicant and relying on the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he has argued that present applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity but going through the said order, prima facie, this Court is of considered view that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is based on perverse finding and misconception. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not assigned reasons which speaks volume. However, dealing with the present application, it is pertinent to note that, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in (2014)8 SCC 273 and Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012]1 SCC 40 and observed that present applicant is similarly situated to other co-accused who are already distinguished by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while deciding the bail application of the present applicant in August, 2023. Even, the reason that the role of the present applicant is only of Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 02:15:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16433/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025 undefined abetment and prosecution failed to show his involvement is concerned, a bare perusal of investigation papers clearly reveal that present applicant armed with knife came with accused No.1 and thereafter his presence is noted in the CCTV footage and even the FSL has also confirmed the said fact and even the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to understand and distinguish the role and basic principle and the difference between common intention, common object, conspiracy and abetment. Further, learned Additional Sessions Judge has recorded that the role of the present applicant is that he is only abettor but it is needless to say that herein, the applicant was member of unlawful assembly and they hatched criminal conspiracy in furtherance of his overt act and thereafter he destroyed evidence. To establish and prove the criminal conspiracy sufficient material is collected during the investigation. Even though the decision in the case of Sanjay Chandra (Supra) has its relevance but the same cannot be made applicable in each and every case for grant of bail. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Virupakshappa Gouda and Another vs. The State of Karnataka reported in (2017) 5 SCC 406. [13.0] Herein, present applicant is arraigned as accused in aid of section 149 of the IPC. It is needless to say that the applicant herein was present at the time of commission of offence, his name is also mentioned as accused in the complaint. When a person is attacked by a group of persons, it is difficult to establish physical assault. There is a clear allegation against the present applicant that he was member of unlawful assembly sharing a common object of assault to the deceased. Hence, accused persons came with deadly weapons in hand. Section 141 of the IPC defines 'unlawful assembly' which is an Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 02:15:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16433/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025 undefined important element to establish joint liability of the members under section 149 of the IPC. In aid of section 149 of the IPC, present applicant is arraigned as accused and provisions of sections 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC are enacted in order to maintain tranquility of the society and present applicant actively participated in the commission of attack by virtue of section 149 of the IPC in aid of the common object as he acted in furtherance of common object, he is arraigned as accused. In case of such allegation of unlawful assembly even it is not necessary that there must be specific overt act played each of the member of such an assembly in the commission of an offence. What is required to be shown is the participation as a member in pursuance of a common object of the assembly or being a member of that assembly, such person knew as to what is likely to be committed in prosecution of any such common object and in the event of the proof of showing of either of the above conduct of a member of an unlawful assembly is only enough. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Susanta Das vs. State of Orissa reported in (2016) 4 SCC
371. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parshuram vs. State of M.P. rendered in Criminal Appeal No.524 of 2021, considering the judgment of Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Masalti vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1965 SC 202 has observed and held as under:
"17. What has to be proved against a person who is alleged to be a member of an unlawful assembly is that he was one of the persons constituting the assembly and he entertained alognwith the other members of the assembly the common object as defined by Section 141 IPC. Section 142 provides that whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly.
In other words, an assembly of five or more persons actuated by, and entertaining one or more of the common objects specified by the five Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 02:15:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16433/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025 undefined clauses of Section 141, is an unlawful assembly. The crucial question to determine in such a case is whether the assembly consisted of five or more persons and whether the said persons entertained one or more of the common objects as specified by Section 141. While determining this question, it becomes relevant to consider whether the assembly consisted of some persons who were merely passive witnesses and had joined the assembly as a matter of idle curiosity without intending to entertain the common object of the assembly.
It is in that context that the observations made by this Court in the case of Baladin [AIR 1956 SC 181] assume significance; otherwise, in law, it would not be correct to say that before a person is held to be a member of an unlawful assembly, it must be shown that he had committed some illegal overt act or had been guilty of some illegal omission in pursuance of the common object of the assembly..."
Hence, present applicant having any common object or not is required to be considered after appreciation of evidence. The said common object may infer from the cumulative effect of facts of a particular case. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the case of Mahendran vs. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2019) 5 SCC 67. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has ignored the aforesaid settled principle and proposition of law. Hence, applicant is not entitled to claim parity based on findings / reason assigned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
[14.0] Further, the learned advocate for the applicant has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakar Tewari (Supra) and submitted that merely having past antecedent is not a ground to refuse bail. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parasa Raja Manikyala Rao And Anr vs State Of A.P reported in AIR 2004 SC 132, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under:
"...Each case, more particularly a criminal case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough to warrant like treatment because a significant detail may alter the entire Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 02:15:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16433/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025 undefined aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive."
In the case of Sushil Suri vs. CBI reported in (2011)5 SCC 708, it has been observed and held as under:
"Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Justice Cardozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive."
Herein, keeping in mind the severity of the act and the fact that it would adversely affect the society and as the offences are against the State, authority relied on by the learned advocate for the applicant would not avail any assistance.
[15.0] Even, merely because witnesses have turned hostile and settlement took place is not a ground to allow the present application. The prosecution has ample power to put leading question to the witness and if the testimony of such witnesses lends corroboration with other reliable evidence produced on record and considering the attending circumstances, Court may appreciate the evidence. This is very early stage to come to conclusion that if the witnesses turn hostile then it would be a futile exercise on the part of the Court to continue with such proceeding.
[16.0] Further, it is needless to say that at the time of deciding bail application Court has not to appreciate the evidence and is a matter of evidence. This is not a case where applicant is falsely implicated keeping the grudge or to settle the score. Considering the Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 02:15:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16433/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025 undefined facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of offence, severity of punishment as well as the law laid down in cases of of Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan reported in 2002 (3) SCC 598 and Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar reported in 2020 (2) SCC 118, this Court do not think it appropriate to exercise its discretion in favour of the accused more particularly considering the role attributed to the accused and considering the involvement in such serious offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC with life or death sentence. It is also apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajwar vs. Waseem and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine (SC) 974 and Aqeel Ahmed vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine (SC) 499, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:
"26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail."
[16.1] Further, in the case of CBI vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported in (2013)7 SCC 452, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 34 as under:
"34. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 02:15:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16433/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025 undefined produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt."
At this stage, decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and Another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446 is also required to be referred to wherein it has been held that the concept of liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but is a restricted one and no element in the society can act in a manner by consequence of which the life or liberty of others is jeopardized. Even, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushanta Kumar Dhalasamanta vs. State of Odisha rendered in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.17256/2024, it would not be in the interest of justice to enlarge the applicant on bail.
[17.0] Considering seriousness of offence and involvement of accused, present application being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.
[18.0] The prosecution is directed to ensure that all witnesses remain present before the leasrned trial Court as per the schedule provided by learned APP to the Court and to complete the examination of witnesses upto 05.06.2025. Learned defence Counsel is also directed to extend full cooperation to the learned Sessions Court for expeditious disposal of the trial as per the schedule provided by learned APP to the Court.
[19.0] It is made clear that the observations made in the present order are tentative in nature and the learned trial Court shall decide the case of the applicant on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made in the present order.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 02:15:13 IST 2025