Krushnakumar @ Kishorbhai Deepsinh @ ... vs State Of Gujarat on 26 December, 2018

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Krushnakumar @ Kishorbhai Deepsinh @ ... vs State Of Gujarat on 26 December, 2018

Bench: G.R.Udhwani

         R/CR.A/1965/2018                                  ORDER




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1965 of 2018
===========================================================
   KRUSHNAKUMAR @ KISHORBHAI DEEPSINH @ DIPUBHAI GOHIL
                           Versus
                    STATE OF GUJARAT & 1
================================================================
Appearance:
MR CHINTAN S POPAT(5004) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
MR KL PANDYA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the
RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
================================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI

                            Date : 26/12/2018

                             ORAL ORDER

1. Admit. Learned APP waives for respondent no.1 State.

2. Denial of bail for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), under Section 3(1)(r), 3(2)(5a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act in connection with the FIR registered at C.R. No.I 189 of 2018 with Una Police Station; by an order dated 27.11.2018 passed in CR.MA No. 353 of 2018 by the learned Special Judge ( Atrocity) and 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gir SomnathUna has given rise to this appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC & ST Act.

3. Having regard to the nature of accusation against the appellant and having regard to the fact that except 506(2) of the IPC; other offences are bailable, the bail cannot be denied to the appellant.

Page 1 of 4

R/CR.A/1965/2018 ORDER Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC i.e. intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace must be borne in the evidence. No such facts are emerging on record.

For the offence punishable under Section 506(2) of the IPC, a criminal intimidation as defined in Section 503 of the IPC must be borne in the evidence on record. This Court has elaborately discussed the requirements of Section 503 and 506(2) of the IPC while deciding Criminal Appeal No.2213 of 2006. However, no ingredients of Section 503 of the IPC are borne in the evidence.

4. Having regard to the role attributed to the appellant and nature of accusation against the appellant, the quantum of sentence that eventually may be imposed upon him if found guilty and considering the fact that no serious injuries were caused on the person of the victim who was treated as outdoor patient and as also in absence of apprehension against the appellant fleeing from trial, tampering with the evidences or threatening the witnesses, case for admitting the appellant to bail is made out and the appellant is required to be admitted to bail.

5. So far as accusations under section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are concerned, the necessary averments that the offender is not the member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are lacking from the FIR and in similar circumstances in Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2008) 12 SCC 531],, the FIR devoid of such averments was quashed. Thus even under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the appellants ought to have been considered for the bail.

Page 2 of 4

R/CR.A/1965/2018 ORDER

6. The trial court failed to consider the aforesaid aspect and thus committed error in denying the bail to the appellant. The case for admitting the appellants to bail is made out and the appellant is required to be admitted to bail.

7. In above view of the matter, the appeal succeeds. The impugned order referred in para 2 of this appeal is quashed and set aside and the appellant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No.I 189 of 2018 with Una Police Station on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions he shall;

(a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

(b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

(d) not leave the territory of India without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;

(e) mark presence in the concerned police station once in a calendar month;

(f) furnish the present address of residence along with the proof to the Investigating Officer concerned and also to the trial court at the time of execution of the bond and shall indicate change of residential address if any to the trial court.

8. The competent authority will release the appellants only if they are not required in connection with any other offence for the time being.

Page 3 of 4

           R/CR.A/1965/2018                                   ORDER



8.1     If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the

Sessions Judge concerned will be free to take appropriate action in the matter.

8.2 Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case.

8.3 It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law.

8.4 At the trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage, made by this Court while enlarging the appellants on bail.

9. Appeal succeeds. Direct service is permitted.

(G.R.UDHWANI, J) niru* Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court