Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. The application for bail was resisted by the learned counsel for the prosecution on the ground that the deceased was the President of Gir Nature Youth Club, an NGO and also Editor of a magazine “Around the Nature” and an active RTI activist. He had found the appellant to be involved in number of illegal activities and had exposed him in number of ways as a consequence of which he had hatched the conspiracy with the accused No. 1 which ultimately resulted in hiring of accused No. 2 as a contract killer on payment of Rs.11 lakhs to eliminate him. The learned counsel also contended that there were various call details and contacts made by the accused, particularly, with accused No. 2 who had absconded; that fake SIM cards were provided by the appellant to hide their identity; that the appellant had criminal antecedents; that no leniency should be shown despite the plea advanced as regards the social reputation; that the factum of conspiracy is quite complex and the prosecution had been able to gather the connecting materials which would go a long way to show involvement of the appellant and hence, it was not a fit case where discretion for grant of bail should be exercised.

11. We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, learned counsel for the State of Gujarat and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal and Mr. Mohit D. Ram, learned counsel for respondent No.

2.

12. Mr. Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the appellant, accused No. 4, has submitted that the reliance on the statement of the peon who had only mentioned that accused No. 1 Bahadursinh, was a frequent visitor to the office of the appellant, but he had not been able to hear any conversation because of glass doors, makes the impugned orders sensitively unsustainable as such kind of statement does not render any assistance to the prosecution case. He would further submit that the allegation that the appellant provided the finance in hiring the contract killer has no semblance of truth inasmuch as it is manifest from the statement of Amarsinh, the brother of Bahadursinh, that he had given rupees nine lakhs in cash to his brother for purchase of land in Kodinar area and thus, the appellant had no involvement with the alleged financing. It is his submission that the voice in the mobile phone was not recorded and only a singular call was made by the accused No. 2 and such a stray incident cannot even suggest in the remotest manner any kind of conspiracy and, therefore, regard being had to the period of incarceration, he should be enlarged on bail.

24. The present factual matrix is required to be tested on the aforesaid touchstone of law. There is no denial of the fact that the deceased was an RTI activist and extremely keen in exposing certain matters which pertain to illegal mining and many other such arenas. It is not in dispute that the deceased was murdered about 8.30 p.m. on the Public Road just opposite the High Court and near the corner of “Satyamev Complex-I” where situates the office of Bar Council of Gujarat. The appellant is a dealer in mobile phones and there is some material on record that he had handed over mobile phones to his friend who is a police constable and owns mines; and that a call has been traced from the mobile of the contract killer to the appellant. Mr. Rohtagi would argue with vehemence that the aforesaid circumstances are sketchy and the prosecution has tried to rope the appellant in conspiracy basically on the ground that he had provided the finance but the said story does collapse like a pack of cards inasmuch as the accused No. 1 had taken a substantial sum from his brother towards his share in the profit from the family property. It is also borne out on record that the appellant is an influential man in the society and he claims to be a friend of a constable and has urged that as a friend he was visiting his office and nothing has been stated to have been heard by the office peon. It is argued with immense emphasis that the sketchy connection does not make out a prima facie case against the appellant and further there is no material to infer that he would tamper with evidence or would not make himself available for trial.