Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/1297/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 1297 of 2011
=========================================================
KISHORBHAI
JAGABHAI SHEKHDA - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
HARSHIT S TOLIA for Applicant.
MR HL JANI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
for
Respondent.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 23/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
This
is an application under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code by
the applicant who has been arrested in connection with C.R. No. I-36
of 2009 registered with Kotdasangani Police Station, Rajkot District
for offences punishable under sections 302, 201, 147, 148, 149, 120.B
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(2) and 3(5) of the
Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities)Act
and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
Mr.
Tolia, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. The
applicant was not present at the scene of offence and there is
nothing on the record to indicate that he was primafacie involved in
the commission of the alleged offence. Learned advocate submitted
that co-accused are already enlarged on regular bail either by
co-ordinate bench of this Court or by the sessions Court and
therefore the applicant also deserves to be enlarged on bail even on
the ground of parity. Learned advocate has placed reliance on an
order dated 04.03.2011 passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court
[Coram: Akil Kureshi, J.] in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1408 of
2011. He submitted that considering the aforesaid aspect, the
applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Learned advocate has
placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of K.S.
Bharvad cs. State of Gujarat reported in 2005 (3) GLH 141 to submit
that in a case when trial is found to be unreasonably protracted,
this Court can consider the case for granting of temporary bail. He
submitted that in the present case, the applicant has been in jail
for the last 19 months and since the trial is proceeding at a snail’s
pace, the applicant is required to be enlarged on regular bail.
Mr.
H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while opposing the
bail application submitted that the applicant is involved in serious
offences punishable under sections 302, 201, 147, 148, 149, 120.B and
34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(2) and 3(5) of the
Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act
and considering the role attributed to the applicant as reflected in
the FIR and this being a successive bail application, no interference
is called for and the application deserves to be rejected out of
hand.
Heard
learned advocate Mr. Harshad Tolia for the applicant and Mr. H.L.
Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor at length and in great
detail.
This
is a successive bail application. Yet I have heard learned advocates
at length. I have also considered the FIR at Annexure ‘A’ to the
application, the role attributed to the applicant as reflected in the
FIR, the manner in which the offence is committed and the nature of
the offence as well as the gravity of the offence in which the
applicant is involved. The offence alleged against the applicant are
serious which also includes an offence punishable under section 302
of IPC. I am of the view that no interference is called for in this
successive bail application preferred by the applicant. The applicant
can prefer a successive bail application provided there is any change
in the circumstances. Merely because co-accused are granted bail or
that the application for cancellation of bail of co-accused has been
rejected by the Apex Court as is stated in paragraph 6 of this
application cannot be considered to be a substantial change in
circumstances warranting interference by this Court in a successive
bail application.
In
view of the above, no case is made out by the applicant to enlarge
him on bail. Hence rejected. Rule is discharged.
mathew
[H.B. ANTANI, J.]
Top