Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/4143/2009 9/ 9 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 4143 of 2009
=========================================================
ANWAR
AYUB HINGORJA - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ASHISH M DAGLI for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR LB DABHI ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 12/05/2009
ORAL
ORDER
1. Rule.
Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service
of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State of Gujarat.
2. This
application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, for grant of bail in connection with F.I.R. Being
C.R. No.I-75 of 2008, registered with Bhimasar Police Station,
initially for offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304-A of
the Indian Penal Code and Sections 177, 184 and 134 of the Motor
Vehicles Act. Subsequently, by report dated 17.01.09 of
Investigating Officer, sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code were sought to be added and other sections sought to be deleted.
3. The
allegations against the applicant is that he is involved in
commission of the above-mentioned offences.
4. Briefly
stated, the case of the prosecution is that two persons, met with an
accident with a truck and succumbed to their injuries. Subsequently,
the allegation against the applicant is that he is involved in the
commission of above-mentioned offences, punishable under sections 302
and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Mr.
Yogesh Lakhani, learned senior counsel with Mr. Chirag Parekh,
learned counsel for the applicant, has submitted that applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the commission of the
alleged offences. That, the incident has taken place on 20.07.08, and
upto 24.11.08, the present version of the prosecution, that the
applicant was involved in more serious offence, did not surface.
That, it is only on 24.11.08 i.e. after a period of about over four
months, that the applicant is sought to be involved in the commission
of the above-mentioned offences. That there is no explanation
whatsoever, why the said narration was not given, at an earlier point
of time, especially when the complainant has filed a private
complaint on 12.11.08, wherein this aspect is totally missing. That
as there is no material on record to connect the applicant with the
commission of above-mentioned offences, as no person has seen the
applicant committing the alleged offence and, as the charge-sheet has
been filed and investigation is over and, as the applicant is not
likely to abscond, tamper with the evidence or intimidate the
witnesses, the application may be considered.
6. On
the other hand, Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
on behalf of the respondent-State, has strongly opposed the grant of
bail to the applicant.
7. I
have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused
the averments made in the application, contents of the FIR and other
documents on record. Considering the material on record, the
following aspects emerge for consideration:
a) The
incident has taken place on 20.07.08.
b) Upto
24.11.08, the case of the prosecution has been that the deceased
persons died of injuries sustained as a result of an accident, with
a truck.
c) On
24.11.08, this version undergone a change which is allegedly on the
basis of certain statements, and the applicant is sought
to be involved in an offence of a more serious nature.
d) The
version of the prosecution is that the deceased persons were lying in
a bloodied condition on the road. However, there do not appear
to be any eyewitnesses who have witnessed the entire incident.
e) The wives
of the deceased persons have filed petitions on 21.08.08, for
claiming compensation before the concerned Court, on the ground that
their husbands (deceased persons) died in an accident.
f) On
perusal of the material on record, including papers of charge-sheet
and statements, the involvement of the applicant in the commission of
the alleged offence is not clearly discernible.
g) Prima-facie,
there does not appear to be material on record, to
connect the applicant with the commission of the
above-mentioned offences.
8. Considering
the above aspects, emerging from the material on record, prima-facie,
the involvement of the applicant in the commission of above-mentioned
offences, in the manner alleged, is not clearly reflected, or
indicated from the record. Considering the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, as
well as the quantum of punishment that can be imposed
upon conviction, and as the applicant is not likely to abscond,
tamper with the evidence or intimidate witnesses, the application
deserves to be allowed, especially, when the charge-sheet has been
filed and investigation is over.
9. For
the reasons stated above, the
application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on
bail in connection with FIR, being C.R. No.I-75 of 2008 registered
with Bhimasar Police Station, on executing a personal bond to the
tune of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only), with one solvent
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and
subject to the conditions that the applicant:
a) shall
not take undue advantage of his liberty or abuse his liberty in
any manner;
b) shall
not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution or
tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses;
c)
shall maintain law and order and shall cooperate fully with the
investigating officers and shall make himself available for
investigation, as and whenever directed;
d) shall
mark his presence before the Investigating Officer of the
concerned Police Station on the 15th and 30th
day of every English calendar month, between 10:00 am
to 5:00 pm, till the commencement of trial.
e) shall
not leave the local limits of the State of Gujarat without the
prior permission of the concerned Sessions Judge;
f) shall
furnish his residential address to the Investigating Officer and
also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and
shall not change his residential address without prior permission
of this Court;
g) shall
surrender their Passport, if any, to the lower Court within a
week.
10. If
the applicant commits breach of any of the above conditions, the
concerned Sessions Judge will be free to issue warrants or take
appropriate action in the matter.
11. It
is made clear that no observations made by this Court be construed as
having any bearing on the merits of the case. At the time of the
trial, the trial Court will proceed in accordance with law,
unaffected and uninfluenced by any observations contained in this
order.
12. 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.
13. Rule
is made absolute. Direct Service is permitted.
(SMT.
ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.)
menon/
Top