Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/10953/2008 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10953 of 2008
=========================================================
CHANDRASINH
MANUBHA JADEJA - Applicant
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
KAUSHAL D PANDYA for the Applicant.
MR
PD BHATE, APP for the
Respondent.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE DN PATEL
Date
: 05/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
application has been preferred for regular bail under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, in connection with the offence
registered with Ellisbridge Police Station, Ahmedabad bearing
C.R.No.I- 454 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Sections 302,
143, 147, 148, 149, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with
Section 135(1) of Bombay Police Act.
2. Having
heard the learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts
and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, it appears that
:
(i) The
present bail application is successive bail application. After
receiving the papers of charge-sheet, previous bail application being
Criminal Misc.Application No.2479 of 2008 was preferred by the
applicant, which was disposed of as withdrawn. Order dated 23rd
April,2008 passed by this Court in earlier bail application, reads as
under:
?SORAL ORDER
1. Learned
counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this
application, after hearing the arguments canvassed by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, with the help of investigating papers.
2. Permission as prayed
for, is granted. This application is disposed of as withdrawn. Notice
is discharged.??
(ii) There is no change in
circumstance, after the aforesaid order is passed except passage of
time/ afflux of time.
(iii) Learned counsel for
the applicant has argued in detail and read over the statements of
the witnesses. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also relied
upon several statements recorded during the course of investigation.
Looking to the statement of prosecution witness namely Hansaba
Chandrasinh Jadeja, who is a wife of the present applicant, has
stated that on 15th June,2006, the applicant was away from
his house. 15th June,2006 is the day on which murder has
taken place in the vicinity of Ellisbridge Gymkhana club.
(iv) Looking to the
statement of prosecution witness Shaktidan Badridan, there is
involvement of the present applicant in the offence as alleged by the
prosecution. Looking to the evidence on record, it appears that the
applicant was in the city of Ahmedabad on 15th June,2006,
and, his presence nearby scene of offence, i.e. Ellisbridge Gymkhana
is coming on record on the basis of mobile phone tracing. Thus, the
applicant was present nearby Ellisbridge Gymkhana on 15th
June,2006.
(v) Looking to the
statement of Prosecution witness Aniruddhsinh Jadeja, who is
driver of Tata Sumo Jeep Car, stated that the applicant was sitting
on Jeep Car on 15th June,2006 and the applicant was came
from Rajkot to Ahmedabad.
These three witnesses are
connecting the applicant with the offence, more particularly, on 15th
June,2006, at Ahmedabad and on nearby Ellisbridge Gymkhana, where
murder took place.
(vi) As per papers of
investigation, there is charge of conspiracy against the applicant.
Every act of co-conspirator is enhancement and furtherance of
conspiracy. Looking of the statement of Devendra, who is Manager and
is serving in Roshni Guest House in the city of Ahmedabad, there is a
prima facie case against the applicant. The present applicant has
stayed in Roshni Guest House in the false name of Raju Dave. Thus,
the applicant was present in the city of Ahmedabad and he has signed
the register of Roshni Guest House in the name of Raju Dave.
Initially, conspiracy was hatched to commit murder of deceased
Pankajbhai Trivedi at Roshni Guest House, as per the prosecution.
(vii) Looking to the
handwriting expert opinion
dated 18th August,2006, Register of Roshni Guest
House, in which, signature in the name of Raju Dave, is handwriting
of the applicant. Thus, there is a prima facie case against the
present applicant. As this is bail application stage, this Court is
not much analyzing statements of several other witnesses, which are
collected during the course of investigation.
(viii) Learned counsel for
the applicant submitted that similarly situated another co-accused
namely Chandrakant Meghjibhai Daki and Daxesh Hasmukhlal Shah have
been enlarged on bail and the role played by the present applicant is
similar than the role alleged against these two co-accused and,
therefore, on the ground of parity, the applicant deserves to be
enlarged on bail. This contention is not accepted by this Court for
the reason that :
(a) The applicant was
present nearby scene of offence i.e. Ellisbridge Gymkhana, as per
evidence collected during the course of investigation.
(b) Looking to the
statement of Hansaba Jadeja and Shaktidan Badridan on the date of
which, the murder of deceased was taken place, the applicant was
present in the city of Ahmedabad.
(c) Looking to the
statement of Aniruddhsinh Jadeja read with Register of Roshni Guest
House, the applicant has travelled from Rajkot to Ahmedabad from 10th
June,2006 to 13th June,2006 and stayed in the name of Raju
Dave at Roshni Guest House. There is also allegation of conspiracy
against the present applicant and on 15th June,2006, the
applicant has came from Rajkot to Ahmedabad, as per statement of
Aniruddhsinh Jadeja in Tata Sumo Jeep Car. Handwriting expert report
is also against the present applicant.
(d) There is also
statements of witnesses namely Devendra Jibodhchandra and Jairajsinh
Jadeja, etc. For these reasons, the case of the present applicant is
different from the other co-accused namely Chandrakant Daki and
Daxesh Shah, who are enlarged on bail.
3. As
a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons and looking to
the facts and circumstances of the case, statements of the witnesses,
gravity of the offence, quantum of punishment, the manner in which
the applicant is involved in the offence and as this is successive
bail application and there is no change of circumstance, after
withdrawal of the previous bail application, I am not inclined to
enlarge the applicant on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has
argued out at length on the basis of several evidences on record but
as this is a bail application stage, this Court is not much
evaluating and analyzing the statement of the witnesses in detail.
Suffice it to say that the present applicant is prima facie, involved
in commissioning of the offences as alleged by the prosecution and if
he is enlarged on bail, there are all chances that he may tamper with
the evidence and may not be available to the court, at the time of
trial.
4. In
view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, there is
no substance in this application and, therefore, the same is hereby
dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(D.N.PATEL,J)
*dipti
Top