Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/589020/2009 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 5890 of 2009
==========================================
ARJANBHA
RUKHADBHA MANEK & 4 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
==========================================
Appearance :
MR
KANDRAP H DHOLKIA for Applicant(s) : 1 - 5.
MR.
A.J.DESAI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
1,
==========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 23/06/2009
ORAL
ORDER
RULE.
Mr. A.J.Desai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service
of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondent State of Gujarat.
The present
application has been filed by the Applicants accused persons under
Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for grant of regular bail.
The Applicants
accused are charged with having committed offence under Sections
302, 307, 143 to 149, etc. of the Indian Penal Code, for which
complaint has been lodged being I-CR No. 83 of 2008 with Dwarka
Police Station.
Learned advocate Mr.
Kandrap H. Dholkia for the applicant accused referred to the FIR and
submitted that it is evident from the manner in which the incident
is said to have occurred and the role attributed to the present
applicants accused as none of the applicants accused have caused any
injury to the deceased. He further submitted that the other
co-accused are alleged to have caused injury to the deceased. For
that, he specifically referred to the role attributed to each of the
applicants accused herein and submitted that the applicant accused
No.1 Arjanbha Rukhadbha Manek is said to have been armed with
axe and he is alleged to have caused injury to the complainant and
not to the deceased. He further submitted that the complainant has
been discharged, and therefore, at the most the offence under
Section 307 of IPC could be attracted qua the applicant accused
no.1- Arjanbha Rukhadbha Manek. He further submitted that the
applicant accused no.2 Derajbha Ajabha Manek is said to have
been armed with stick and attributed with the injury to the
complainant and the mother and not the deceased. Similarly,
applicant accused no.3 Rukhadbha Ajabha Manek is said to have been
armed with stick and is alleged to have
caused injury to the complainant and the father and not the
deceased. The applicant accused no.4 Torubha Rukhadbha Manek is
alleged to have caught hold of the complainant and the other
co-accused have given the stick blow. Similarly, the applicant
accused no.5 Gagubha Ajabha Manek is alleged to have caught hold
of the complainant. Therefore, learned advocate Mr. Dholkia
submitted that at this stage, considering the role attributed to the
applicants accused, they may be released on bail.
Learned
advocate Mr. Dholkia further submitted that the other co-accused
having similar role, have been released as per the order passed by
this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3097 2009 dated
9.4.2009, the copy of which is also produced on record. He,
therefore, submitted that on the ground of parity, the present
applicants may also be released.
Learned APP
Mr.A.J.Desai referred to the statement of witnesses and submitted
that the incident is alleged to have occurred near the boundaries of
the field, where the applicants and the other co-accused and
assaulting party armed with weapons have assaulted, for which the
alleged affence is said to have been committed. However, learned
APP conceded that the role attributed to the applicants accused in
Criminal Misc. Application No. 3097 of 2009 is also similar to the
role attributed to the Applicant accused nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5.
Heard learned advocate
Mr. Dholkia for the applicants and learned APP Mr. A.J.Desai for the
Respondent State of Gujarat.
Having regard to the
gravity of the offence, the nature of the offence alleged and the
manner in which the offence is said to have been committed,
particularly when 10 persons armed with lethal weapons have
assaulted, causing death of the deceased, is a serious offence.
Moreover, the offences alleged are also under Sections 143, 147, 148
and 149 of IPC, where the individual role would not be much
relevant. However, since the other co-accused having a similar
role, have been released as per order passed in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 3097 of 2009 dated 9.4.2009, in the opinion of this
Court, the Applicant Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are therefore required to be
released on bail on the ground of parity. However, Applicant
accused no.1 Arjanbha Rukhadbha Manek, who is alleged to have
armed with axe and causing injury to the complainant by assaulting
with the axe, cannot be said to be on the same footings, and
therefore, he would not be entitled for grant of bail on the ground
of parity. The present application, therefore, stands rejected qua
Applicant No.1 Arjanbha Rukhadbha Manek. Rule discharged qua
Applicant No.1.
However, the present
application stands allowed qua Applicant Nos. 2 to 5. Accordingly,
the Applicant accused no. 2 Derajbha Ajabha Manek, Applicant
accused no.3 Rukhadbha Ajabha Manek, Applicant accused no.4
Torubha Rukhadbha Manek and Applicant accused No.5 Gagubha
Ajabha Manek, are ordered to be released on bail in connection with
I-CR No. 83 of 2008 registered with Dwarka Police Station, on their
executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each, with one
solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the lower
Court and subject to the conditions that they shall:
(a) not take undue
advantage of their liberty or abuse their liberty.
(b) not to try to
tamper or pressurize the prosecution witnesses or complainant in any
manner.
(c) not act in any
manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution.
(d) maintain law and
order and should cooperate the investigating officers.
(e) mark their
presence before Dwearka Police Station on every 1st day
of the calendar month, between 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
(f) furnish the
address of their residence to the Investigating Officer and also to
the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change
their residence without prior permission of the Court.
(g) surrender their
passport, if any, to the lower Court, within a week.
If 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.
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.
Rule is made absolute
quo Applicant accused nos. 2 to 5. Direct service permitted.
(Rajesh H.Shukla,J)
Jayanti*
Top