Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. So far as Cri. M.A. No. 7600/04 is concerned, it has been submitted by Mr. Patel that the offence is under the Arms Act where the minimum punishment is for three years and maximum punishment is for 7 years and therefore keeping in view the gravity of the offence the petitioner deserves to be released on bail because the offence is not an offence punishable for life or the punishment is less than 10 years.

8. On behalf of the State Government it has been stated by the Ld. APP under the instructions of Mr. A.K. Patel, PSI that the petitioner was released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge in connection with the communal riot case on 8.3.02 and while on bail in addition to Sessions Case No. 227/02 which is also for communal riot case in which the petitioner is acquitted (for which the State has decided to go in appeal) and the offence under Arms Act vide C.R. No. 309/02 which is the subject matte of Cri. M.A. No. 7600/04, the petitioner is also found to have been involved in the offence of other three communal riot cases vide CR Nos 76/02, dated 5.3.02, 176/02, dated 13.6.02 and 186/02, dated 23.6.02 for the charges under sections 307, 143, 147, 148. 149, 336, 436, 353 and 188 of IPC and therefore the petitioner may not be released on bail by this court.

9. It appears that so far as the failure to mark the presence before the Police Station is concerned, the ground sought to be canvassed is that there was curfew and in view of the same the petitioner could not mark the presence and such lapse on the part of the petitioner may be viewed leniently by this court. However, even if such lapse on the part of the petitioner of not marking the presence in time is leniently viewed, what is more serious breach is that while remaining on bail, the petitioner is found to have been involved as per the prosecution case, in five cases of serious offences and out of those five cases of serious offences, four are pertaining to same type of communal riot cases. It is a matter of record that the petitioner is released on bail on 8.3.2002 in connection with first riot case and while on bail the petitioner is found to have been involved in other four communal riot cases and one case under Arms Act, as per prosecution case, and the details of the same are as under:

(i) Communal Riot case vide CR No. 76/02, dated 15.3.02
(ii)Communal Riot case vide CR No. 176/02, dated 13.6.02
(iii)Communal Riot case vide CR No. 186/02, dated 23.6.02
(iv) Communal Riot case vide CR No. 227/02, dated 12.7.02 (in which the petitioner is ultimately acquitted and the State has taken decision to prefer appeal against the acquittal before this court.)
(v) Offence under Arms Act vide CR No. 390/02, dated 9.9.02

10. Therefore, it appears that even if it is considered that the petitioner is acquitted in one of the riot cases vide Sessions Case No. 227/02, the petitioner is found to have been involved, as per the prosecution case, in other three riot cases and one case under Arms Act while the petitioner was on bail as per the order, dated 8.3.02 passed by the Ld.Sessions Judge. It appears that the chagesheets are filed in connection with aforesaid all criminal cases including the offence under Arms Act, and therefore, if the chargesheets are filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid serious offences of communal riots, it can not be said that the petitioner has not committed serious breach of one of the conditions of bail, i.e. not to commit any offence during bail period which results into breach of peace. In case of Thakorebhai Meghjibhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 726/04 which has been decided on 28.3.04) this court has an occasion to consider the matter for cancellation of bail which was granted by the learned Sessions Judge to the accused for the offence under section 302 of IPC etc. One of the accused namely Ashokbhai while on bail in connection with earlier offences whose sessions cases were pending was alleged to have committed the offence under section 302 of IPC and inspite of the same the learned Sessions Judge had granted bail. This court while considering the said matter for exercising discretion between two accused, of the same offence, at para 12 observed as under:

This court record shows that against the aforesaid decision of this court, Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 2237/02 was preferred by the aforesaid Ashokbhai before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same has been dismissed on 5.7.2004 with the observation that if the final report is filed petitioner would be at liberty to renew his bail application. Therefore , if the accused who is facing charge of serious offences while on bail is found to have been involved in serious offences, it would be a valid ground to cancel the bail or not to exercise discretion to release the accused on bail. It is true that the criteria or the yardstick for the purpose of releasing the person on bail and cancellation of bail may be different, but in the present case, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the petitioner while on bail is found to have been involved, as per the prosecution case, in serious offences of communal riot, it would not be a case to exercise the discretion for releasing the petitioner on bail. Further, it appears that the petitioner has committed breach of conditions of bail and the breach committed by the petitioner for his alleged involvement in the serious offences of communal rioting as per the prosecution case, and therefore, it can be said to be valid ground for cancellation of bail even if the alleged nonmarking of presence is viewed leniently. Under the circumstances, it can not be said that the power exercised by the learned Sessions Judge of cancelling the bail of the petitioner deserves to be interfered with by this court nor the discretion deserves to be exercised by this court for releasing the petitioner on bail in connection with the complaint vide CR No. 57/02 or the complaint vide CR No. 309/02.