Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Heard learned senior advocate Mr. Jal Unwala appearing NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8570/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined with learned advocate Mr. J. S. Thakkar for the applicant. He submitted that, the applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offfence on 18.11.2024 and thereafter, investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant has been implicated in the present offence only on the basis of suspicion, since, there was some enmity going on between the applicant and deceased. The case of prosecution rests upon the circumstantial evidence in the present case and there have not been any circumstances at all indicating towards the guilt of the present applicant. He further submitted that, as per the case of prosecution, the applicant herein purchased a motor cycle for being used in commission of the present offence. The motor cycle which was purchased by the present applicant was registered in Rajasthan whereas, the motor cycle which is recovered in the present offence by the Investigating Officer bares the registration number of Gujarat. Therefore, the motor cycle which has been recovered by the investigating agency is not the same which was allegedly purchased by the present applicant. It is also case of prosecution that the applicant had hired the contract killers for eliminating the deceased. However, the investigating agency has not produced any material in the charge-sheet connecting the present applicant with the assailants. He therefore submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant has good reputation in the society and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

4. Per contra, learned APP has opposed the present application for grant of regular bail contending that the applicant has actively participated in commission of the offence. There was a previous enmity between the present applicant and the deceased. The father of the applicant had been killed in Rajasthan and the applicant suspected that his father was killed by the deceased in the present case and therefore the applicant with the help of other co-accused had committed the present offence. The applicant had engaged the other co-accused as contract killers for elimination of the deceased. There are CCTV footages wherein the present applicant is seen talking to one of the assailants of the deceased. The applicant had also provided a motor cycle to the other co-accused. The person from whom the applicant had purchased the present motor cycle has also stated in the statement that the applicant had purchased the motor cycle from him. The applicant had also procured a dummy SIM card for being used for commission of the present offence. Learned APP has therefore submitted that looking to the nature of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the Application may be dismissed.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Jit Patel appearing on behalf of learned advocate Mr Kushlendrasinh R Jhala for the complainant has opposed the application.

6. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. Investigation is over and charge sheet is filed. It is the case of prosecution, that the applicant as well as the deceased were the residents of Rajasthan and some disputes with regard NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8570/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined to some land were going on between the families of the applicant and the deceased. The father of the present applicant was killed in Rajasthan. It is the case of prosecution that the applicant suspected that his father was killed by the deceased. It is required to be noted at this stage the there is nothing on record to indicate that the father of the applicant was killed by the deceased. As per the case of prosecution, the applicant had engaged the contract killers for commission of the offence, however, except one CCTV footage where the applicant is seen talking to the other co-accused, there is no other material to indicate that the contract killers were engaged by the present applicant. It is also case of prosecution that the applicant had purchased a motor cycle for being provided to the other co- accused for being used for the commission of the offence. The investigating agency has recorded the statement of the witness from whom the applicant had purchased the said motorcycle. He in his statement, has stated that the motor cycle which was purchased by the applicant was bearing registration number of Rajasthan, admittedly, no motor cycle bearing registration number of Rajasthan is recovered by the investigating agency. The motor cycle which is recovered by the investigating agency and which was allegedly used for commission of the offence bore registration number of Gujarat. Thus, there is no material what so ever in the investigation papers which would connect the present applicant with the offence in question. Considering these aspects, the Application deserves consideration. This court has also considered the following aspects: