Vaghela Bhupatsingh Mahendrasingh vs State Of Gujarat on 18 September, 2015

[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Gujarat High Court

Vaghela Bhupatsingh Mahendrasingh vs State Of Gujarat on 18 September, 2015

Bench: Z.K.Saiyed

                 R/CR.MA/16281/2015                                              ORDER




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

         CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 16281 of 2015

         ==========================================================
                VAGHELA BHUPATSINGH MAHENDRASINGH....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus
                        STATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR EE SAIYED, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
         MR HS SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         ==========================================================

                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED

                                      Date : 18/09/2015


                                       ORAL ORDER

1. This Application has been preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with the offence being CR No.I185 of 2015 registered with Chanasma, Patan for the offences u/s.506(2) and 114 of the IPC and u/s. 3(2)(5) of the Atrocity Act and u/s. 135 of G.P.Act.

2. Heard Mr.E.E.Saiyed, learned counsel for the applicant. He has contended that present applicant has not committed any offence as alleged against him. He has read postmortem note and contended that the injury attributed to be caused by the present applicant to deceased can be possible by knife and it is not possible by Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Sat Sep 19 01:40:01 IST 2015 R/CR.MA/16281/2015 ORDER dhariya. He has contended that in the charge sheet papers present applicant is shown with dhariya. He has contended that the scuffle took place and in result of that deceased received knife injury and not dhariya injury. He has contended that injury shown on the shoulder of the deceased is not possible by dhariya. He has contended that the applicant will be available for interrogation and will remain present during the trial before the trial Court. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence. He has prayed to grant bail to present applicant.

3. Heard Mr.H.S.Soni, learned APP for the respondent - State. He has vehemently opposed bail application. He has contended that there are in total 21 injuries on the body of the deceased and applicant has caused serious injury and due to such injury deceased succumbed to death. He has contended that looking to the allegations made against the present applicant he may not be granted bail. He has contended that offence in question is serious in nature. He has prayed to dismiss present application.

4. I have gone through the complaint as well as chargesheet papers. The Apex Court has in many decisions observed the principles of bail and not jail. Having heard the learned Counsel for both Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Sat Sep 19 01:40:01 IST 2015 R/CR.MA/16281/2015 ORDER the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, statement of the witnesses, gravity of the offence and quantum of punishment and the allegation made against the applicant without entering into merit of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

5. Considering the above, this Application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with CR No.I185 of 2015 registered with Chanasma, Patan for the offence alleged against him in this Application on his executing a Bond of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees ten thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall

a) not take undue advantage of his liberty or abuse his liberty;

b) not to try to tamper or pressurise the prosecution witnesses or complainant in any manner;

c) maintain law and order and should cooperate the Investigating Officer;

d) not act in a manner injurious to the interest Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Sat Sep 19 01:40:01 IST 2015 R/CR.MA/16281/2015 ORDER of the prosecution;

e) not leave the country without the prior permission of the concerned Sessions Judge;

f) Mark presence before the concerned Police Station on last day of every month.

g) furnish the address of his residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;

h) surrender his passport, if any, to the lower Court within a week.

6. If the breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the concerned Sessions Judge will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter.

7. Bail before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It would be open to the trial Court concerned to give time to furnish the solvency certificate if prayed for.

8. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.

(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) KKS Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Sat Sep 19 01:40:01 IST 2015

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court