Gujarat High Court
Fatehmohammed vs State on 28 March, 2012
Author: Md Shah
Bench: Md Shah
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/1419/2012 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 1419 of 2012
=========================================================
FATEHMOHAMMED
@ PARVINKHAN S/OMOHAMMED USMANKHAN GUJJAR - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
BC DAVE for
Applicant(s) : 1, MR KUNAL
B DAVE for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR LB DABHI, APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
MR SHAKEEL A QURESHI for
complainant
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 28/03/2012
ORAL
ORDER
This application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to release the applicant on regular bail in connection with CR No.I-182 of 201 registered with Limbayat Police Station, Surat, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 114, 188, 120(B), 201 and 202 of IPC and Secs.25(1-A), 27 and 29 of Arms Act.
Heard learned Counsel, Mr.B.C.Dave for the applicant, Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent-State and learned advocate, Mr.Shakeel Qureshi for the original complainant.
It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr.Dave that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely involved in the incident. It is also submitted that there is no direct evidence against the applicant. It is also submitted that his name has not been been mentioned in the complaint by the complainant or in the statements of other witnesses, however, his name has been disclosed in the statement of watchman of the applicant-Mohammed Yusuf dated 14-10-2011 and he has been arrested on 19-10-2011. It is further submitted that there is no recovery or discovery from the applicant. According to the him, considering the role attributed to the applicant, he can be charged for the offence under Sec.202 of IPC wherein the sentence prescribed is six months. It is therefore, requested that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. It is also submitted that co-accused, Mohammed Rizwan, from whom pistol was found was released on bail by the Sessions Court and hence also, the applicant may be released on bail.
Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who is assisted by learned advocate, Mr.Shakeel Qureshi for the original complainant, has vehemently opposed the present application and contended that the applicant is involved in a serious offence of murder and when prima-facie case is made out against the applicant, he should not be released on bail.
This Court has minutely gone through the charge sheet papers along with the reasonings given by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.
It appears from the papers of charge sheet that present applicant-original accused No.5 is the main conspirator of the alleged offence. There is sufficient prima facie evidence against the applicant in the alleged crime. It appears that it is at the instance of present applicant that the accused No.1 filed at the victim during the night of 5-10-2011 the victim died. This aspect is made clear from the mobile calls of the accused No.1 frequently made to the mobile number of accused No.5. Thus, it is prima facie seen that the whole conspiracy has been hatched by the present applicant in connivance with other accused in committing the alleged crime. Since it appeared to this Court that the present applicant is the main conspirator from the papers as well as from the reasonings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, this Court would not exercise its discretion in enlarging the applicant on bail. Thus, as discussed above, merely because name of the applicant is not disclosed in the complainant initially but his name has been disclosed in the statement of watchman would not be sufficient to absolve applicant from the alleged crime especially when his prima facie role has been disclosed later on to be the main conspirator in the crime.
In view of the above, this application is rejected. Rule is discharged.
The observations made by this Court in this order being made for the purpose of deciding this application may not prejudice the parties in trial.
[M.D.SHAH,J.] radhan Top