Gujarat High Court
Deepukumar Shivbahadur Yadav vs State Of Gujarat on 2 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2669/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (REGULAR BAIL) NO. 2669 of 2024
==========================================================
DEEPUKUMAR SHIVBAHADUR YADAV
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DINESH B PATEL(3495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HB CHAMPAVAT(6149) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED TO CONCERNED POLICE STATION HOWEVER, SERVICE REPORT NOT
FILED BY POLICE STATION for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 02/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] ADMIT. Learned APP waives service of notice of Admission for and on behalf of the respondent No.1 - State of Gujarat.
[2.0] Present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Atrocity Act") challenging the judgment and order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Narmada at Rajpipla in Criminal Misc. Application No.458 of 2024 whereby the learned Judge rejected the application filed by the present appellant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11823009240606 of 2024 registered with Garudeshwar Police Station, District Narmada for the offences punishable under Sections 103(2), 109, 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(1), 117(2), 126(2) and 127(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNS"); section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Apr 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 03 22:01:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2669/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025 undefined Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short "Atrocity Act") and section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. After the investigation, charge-sheet is filed which culminated into Special Atrocity Case No.9/2024 and is pending for adjudication. The present appellant filed application being CR.MA No.458 of 2024 under Section 483 of the BNSS which came to be dismissed vide order dated 28.10.2024 and hence, being aggrieved the appellant has filed the present appeal.
[3.0] The respondent No.2 - original complainant was joined as a party however, as he expired, his legal heir i.e. his father was brought on record however, he has chosen not to appear before this Court and has also made request to the Court through concerned Investigating Officer to decide the matter on its own merits as he is unable to attend the Court but has opposed bail application filed by the accused. The statement of the complainant and his heir as recorded by the DySP, Ektanagar, Kevadiya is taken on record.
[4.0] Learned advocate for the appellant has mainly assailed the order of the learned Special Judge on the ground that appellant is innocent and is falsely enroped in the offence and neither in the FIR nor during the investigation any specific role is attributed to the present appellant and whatever allegations leveled are against accused Nos.1 and 4, who have played active role even as per the case of prosecution. The appellant is not having any past antecedent and none of the four eye- witnesses have stated anything about the presence or involvement of the present appellant at the scene of offence and even in the CCTV footage present appellant is not seen.
Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Apr 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 03 22:01:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2669/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025 undefined
Even, in the dying declaration, no names are given. Further, he has submitted that as per the case of prosecution, the complainant who subsequently succumbed to the injuries and another deceased both with intention to commit theft of iron rod from the premises at site of construction of museum were caught red-handed and thereafter they were assaulted. However, there was no intention of the accused to kill the deceased persons. Further, even in the Test Identification Parade, no one has identified the present appellant.
[4.1] Further, the appellant also belong to SC / ST community and therefore, section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocity Act will not be applicable to the present case. Even if we accept the case of the prosecution that in the history given by the complainant before the doctor, he had stated about the involvement of the present appellant but there are three different versions coming out from the case of prosecution i.e. in history given before the doctor, in dying declaration and in the complaint. He has submitted that in the present case investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed and the appellant is behind the bars since 07.08.2024 and as nothing is required to be recovered or discovered from the present appellant, he has submitted to enlarge the appellant on regular bail by imposing suitable terms and conditions.
[5.0] Per contra, learned APP appearing for the respondent - State has vehemently opposed the present appeal on the ground that sufficient material and evidence is collected during investigation and involvement of present appellant is found. Herein, is a case of double murder of two persons who under Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Apr 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 03 22:01:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2669/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025 undefined the temptation of getting money by stealing iron rod from the godown and were caught by the accused persons and were tied with the rope alongwith tractor and the puller and thereafter assaulted the deceased persons with PVC pipes, belt and wooden stick and one person namely Jayesh succumbed to the injuries immediately whereas another person i.e. complainant died subsequently. Herein, the offence is against State and is a serious one punishable with life sentence or death penalty and therefore, if the appellant is released on bail then the possibility of tampering with the evidence cannot be ruled out and hence, he has requested to dismiss the present appeal.
[6.0] Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the investigation papers.
[7.0] While deciding bail application, 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 Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Apr 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 03 22:01:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2669/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025 undefined accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations are required to be considered.
[8.0] Perusing the evidence collected during investigation, learned Special Judge has come to conclusion that no case is made out to grant bail to the appellant and dismissed the bail application considering the fact that two persons have lost their lives and seriousness and gravity of the offence and involvement of accused as sufficient material and evidence is collected during investigation and then the charge-sheet is filed and hence, in view of 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 and Naveen Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2021) 6 SCC 191, filing of the charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegation, but strengthens the case of prosecution leveled in the complaint, as such allegations are substantiated with material and filing of charge-sheet is not a ground to grant regular bail in such serious offence which is punishable with life sentence or death penalty.
[9.0] The FIR was lodged by one Sanjaybhai Gajendrabhai Tadvi (now deceased) wherein it is alleged that on 06.08.2024 at night, the complainant and his friend Jayeshbhai Shanabhai Tadavi (deceased) decided to commit theft of iron rods from the construction site at Adivasi Museum. It is further alleged that the complainant and his friend were committing theft of iron rods at that time five to six unknown persons came and took them near the construction site and tied their hands with rope. Subsequently, the accused inquired about them and started Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Apr 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 03 22:01:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2669/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025 undefined abusing and assaulting the complainant and his friend. It is further the case that Jayeshbhai Shanabhai Tadavi became unconscious therefore accused No.1 took them to the government hospital at Garudeshwar wherein the complainant came to know that the person, who wore a red shirt, whose name is Margishbhai Dineshbhai Hirpara, had beaten them by using PVC pipe and took them to hospital. Therefore, the complainant has lodged the FIR against Margishbhai Dineshbhai Hirpara and five unknown persons. That, Jayeshbhai Shanabhai Tadavi was declared dead at the hospital and thereafter the complainant who was eye-witness and had sustained serious injuries also expired.
[10.0] Now, coming back to the involvement of the present appellant, learned advocate for the appellant has mainly argued that three versions are there and appellant is falsely involved in the offence but herein, two persons have lost their lives. The complainant herein succumbed to injuries but prior to that he has registered the complaint though he was injured and was shifted to hospital and he had given history before the doctor wherein name of present appellant is also given to the doctor. The said version is given at the first point of time prior to recording of the dying declaration. This is not a case wherein, firstly he has not given the name of the appellant or any accused in the history before the doctor and thereafter falsely has involved the appellant in dying declaration. Even, there is a time gap between history given before the doctor and subsequently the dying declaration. In the dying declaration also, he has clearly stated about the commission of offence and alleged incident is corroborated with the evidence Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Apr 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 03 22:01:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2669/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025 undefined collected during the investigation. Not only that, he has stated about presence of appellant at the scene of offence but has also stated about the atrocity caused or assault being made by the co-accused also on the deceased persons.
[10.1] Now, second argument is that the presence of the appellant herein is not recorded in the CCTV footage and no one has identified the present appellant during the Test Identification parade but it is needless to say that TI parade is required to be conducted by the complainant who is now no more and therefore, the complainant was not present at the time of conducting TI parade and therefore, the question does not arise to identify the present appellant as he has stated before the doctor as well as in the complaint about the presence and involvement of the present appellant and thus, how and in what manner and method the alleged offence is committed and the involvement of the present appellant is prima facie revealed.
[10.2] Even, the evidence of injured witness is having higher value and even otherwise considering the provisions of sections 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act [section 26(a) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023], said version is at earlier point of time and now having value of dying declaration.
[11.0] Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that there is difference in three versions but prima facie perusing the record, at first point of time, involvement of appellant is deciphered and clearly mentions the name and role of the present appellant. There is no frivolity and no false involvement emerges from the record or from the material Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Apr 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 03 22:01:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2669/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025 undefined collected during investigation or alleged another dying declaration as submitted by learned advocate for the appellant is not accepted.
[12.0] Now, so far as another injury certificate is concerned, same is issued on 11.08.2024 but there appears interpolation in the date of issuance of injury certificate and date is corrected to 10.08.2024. The said injury certificate is handed over during the course of investigation and has been recorded by the doctor who has received the history from the injured and thus he is the first witness or had an occasion to record the said history. Said history is not mentioned in said second certificate but injury and timing everything is same.
[13.0] So far as argument canvassed by learned advocate for the appellant as regards multiple dying declaration is concerned, there is no straitjacket formula to appreciate the dying declaration. Under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act [section 26(a) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023], the dying declaration is irrelevant and exception of hearsay evidence. Herein, complainant himself was injured, he was admitted in the hospital and in the history before the doctor, at first point of time, he has given the name of the present appellant and co-accused Vanrajbhai Parvatbhai Taviyad who has also preferred appeal seeking regular bail but after hearing he has not pressed the said appeal. Learned Special Judge has dismissed the bail application filed by the present appellant by assigning reasons and being aggrieved and dissatisfied present criminal appeal is preferred. Keeping in mind the scope of bail and to advert the contention raised by the learned advocate Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Apr 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 03 22:01:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2669/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025 undefined for the appellant, for the limited purpose though appreciation of evidence is not permissible while deciding the bail application, only with a view to give answer to the submission of learned advocate for the appellant as well as to ascertain the role attributed to the appellant, police papers and evidence collected during the investigation are scanned. Scanning the said material, prima facie it appears that in the history given before the doctor, name of present appellant is given. The alleged incident took place on 06.08.2024 at 22.30 hours. Thereafter, the complaint is registered at 11.15 hours on 07.08.2024. Hence, the history is given before the doctor prior in point of time i.e. before registration of the FIR. Even, there is no somersault wherein nowhere he has not disclosed the name of anyone and subsequently he has stated mere name of accused persons is not the case of defence. The version stated by the injured complainant thereafter during the treatment he succumbed to death and hence, is found consistent and even in the case of multiple dying declarations, how to appreciate evidence has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions. Herein, there is no dying declaration which is divergent but is found consistent. Hence, during the course of appreciation of evidence, if said contention is raised by the defence then the same is required to be examined considering carefully the attending circumstances and surrounding circumstances. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Veerpal and Another reported in (2022) 4 SCC 741 and Nagbhushan vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2021) 5 SCC 222.
Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Apr 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 03 22:01:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2669/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025 undefined
[14.0] Herein, one more glaring aspect which is required to be considered is that though injured complainant succumbed to the injuries subsequently, he has filed the complaint though from day one names of present appellant and other accused surfaced during the investigation though the Investigating Officer has conveniently tried to submit the report before the JMFC and stated that as per the statement of co-accused, present appellant was with him. Considering the aforesaid aspect also, this is not a case that merely based on statement of co-accused, present appellant is arraigned as an accused. There is independent and sufficient material which suggests the involvement of the present appellant and even based on the said fact also, role attributed to the present appellant is very serious, two persons have lost their lives, offence is punishable with life imprisonment and death sentence and hence, argument canvassed by the learned advocate for the appellant is not acceptable.
[15.0] So far as third MLC certificate is concerned, as discussed in earlier part, there is interpolation in the date and is not a MLC but is merely an injury certificate which is prepared to aid the investigation and provided to police for investigation purpose wherein nature of injury is stated. Hence, there is no discrepancy in the version given by the complainant.
[16.0] Herein, the cause of death of deceased (i) Jayeshbhai Sanabhai Tadvi as mentioned in the post-mortem report is, "due to shock on account of injuries to the body leading to cardio-pulmonary arrest and death". The deceased (ii) Sanjaybhai Gajendrabhai Tadvi (complainant) had sustained Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Apr 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 03 22:01:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2669/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025 undefined multiple fractures and more than 18 injuries as per the post- mortem report and the cause of death recorded in the P.M. note is, "cardio-respiratory arrest following multiple injuries and its complications". In that view of the matter, there is sufficient evidence on record to suggest that deceased persons were mercilessly beaten up by the accused persons and present appellant is arraigned in aid of section 149 of the IPC (sections 189 and 190 of the BNSS).
[17.0] One more aspect is required to be considered is that present appellant and co-accused have acted in highhanded manner. For the sake of argument if it is assumed that appellant is entitled for any exception under Section 103(2) of the BNS, even though it is required to be proved during the course of trial by the accused but bare perusal of the material collected during the investigation, in the open place of godown where construction work of tribal museum was going on, both the deceased persons entered with intention to commit theft of iron rod and at that time they were caught and tied by the accused persons and indiscriminate blows of PVC pipes, wooden stick, belt, kick and fist were inflicted with common object of accused persons and at that time, if both the deceased persons were caught red handed while stealing iron rod then it was the duty of the accused persons to report to police rather than taking law in their hands which shows nothing but highhandedness on the part of accused persons. It is needless to say that present appellant is facing charge for the offence under Sections 190 [section 149 of IPC], 191(2) [section 147 of IPC], 191(3) [section 148 of IPC] and present appellant is arraigned as accused in aid of section 190 of the Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Apr 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 03 22:01:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2669/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025 undefined BNS (section 149 of the IPC). It is needless to say that the appellant 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 appellant 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 important element to establish joint liability of the members under section 149 of the IPC. In aid of section 149 of the IPC, present appellant 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 appellant 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.
[18.0] Today, this Court has considered the appeals of co-accused and granted regular bail to two co-accused namely Shailesh Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Apr 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 03 22:01:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2669/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025 undefined Dineshbhai Taviyad and Umesh Gupta Hridyanandan Sah due to reason that the said accused persons were not identified during the TI parade and nowhere their names are mentioned i.e. neither in the history before the doctor nor in the complaint and nor in the dying declaration. But on that count, present appellant is not entitled get the benefit of parity. Similarly situated co-accused Vanrajbhai Parvatbhai Taviyad has not pressed the criminal appeal seeking regular bail today itself. His name was given before the doctor in the history by the deceased himself.
[19.0] Herein, charge-sheet is filed and trial has commenced and hence, there is no possibility of delay in trial. Herein, two persons have lost their lives and therefore, considering the gravity of offence and seriousness of offence, possibility of tampering with the evidence cannot be ruled out if the appellant is released on regular bail. Hence, mere apprehension of delay in trial is not a ground at this stage to consider the appellant for regular bail on the sole ground of delay in trial. 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 as well as Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 100 wherein it has been held that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail.
[20.0] One more aspect is also required to be considered, so far concept of the bail is concerned, purpose of the bail is not a punitive but a preventive. While granting bail, the Court has to Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Apr 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 03 22:01:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2669/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025 undefined take care the availability of the accused at the time of trial and second important aspect is that possibility of the tampering with an evidence of the prosecution. Further, while granting bail, the Court has to satisfy itself about the interest of prosecution. One of the criteria which is required to be considered while considering bail is interest of prosecution witnesses. This Court is of the considered opinion that if the present accused is enlarged on bail, the possibility of accused misusing his liberty and tampering with evidence of prosecution and flight risk cannot be ruled out.
[21.0] Herein, the appellant is facing charges for offence of double murder punishable under Sections 103(2), 109, 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(1), 117(2), 126(2) and 127(2) of the BNS. It is needless to say that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of offence, severity of punishment as well as the law laid down in cases of Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan reported in 2002 (3) SCC 598 and Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar reported in 2020 (2) SCC 118, the Court may not exercise its discretion in favour of the accused. 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 Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Apr 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 03 22:01:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2669/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025 undefined 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."
[21.1] 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 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, it would be apposite to refer to the 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 Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Apr 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 03 22:01:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2669/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025 undefined 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 appellant on bail.
[22.0] For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of view that present is not a fit case to exercise discretion under Section 483 of the BNSS in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, present criminal appeal does not deserve any consideration and is hereby dismissed. However, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as the appellant is an under-trial prisoner.
[23.0] 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 appellant independently on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made in the present order.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Apr 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 03 22:01:43 IST 2025