Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/12824/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 12824 of 2010
=================================================
MALI
SHANKARBHAI VASTABHAI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MEHUL H RATHOD WITH Mr.DILIP RANA for Applicant(s) : 1,
Mr.TEJAS
SATTA for the complainant.
Mr.SEJPAL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 29/11/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The
present application is filed by the applicant-accused for grant of
regular bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
after charge sheet is filed, which is a successive application as
earlier Criminal Misc. Application No.11365 of 2010 has been filed by
the present applicant, before charge sheet.
2. The
applicant-accused is charged with the offences having committed under
sections 506(2) and 507 of the Indian Penal Code for which an F.I.R.
being C.R. No.II-3015 of 2010 has been registered with Suigam Police
Station.
3. Learned
advocate Mr.Mehul Rathod referred to the F.I.R. and other papers and
submitted that considering the nature of the offence and also the
fact that now charge sheet has been filed the present application may
be allowed. He submitted that there was some business transaction and
dispute for which settlement was arrived at and there was no payment
of contract killing as sought to be stated in the F.I.R. He
therefore, submitted that this complaint has been filed as an
afterthought and the present application may be allowed considering
the nature of offence and the role attributed to the
applicant-accused. He submitted that there is no person like
Reshmaben as stated and therefore, the present application may be
allowed.
4. Learned
APP Mr.Sejpal verified the record regarding payment pursuant to the
submissions made on the last occasion and was asked to make
clarification. The learned APP has, therefore, referred to the
statements and resisted the application. However, learned counsel
Mr.Satta has submitted on behalf of the complainant that the amount
has partly been paid by the applicant towards the contract killing
for which he referred to the statements and submitted that the
present application may not be entertained. Learned advocate Mr.Rana
also supported his submissions.
5. In
view of the rival submissions it is required to be considered whether
the present application can be entertained or not. It is well
accepted that this Court is not required to appreciate the evidence
in detail at this juncture. However, considering the prima facie
case, the relevant aspects like nature of offence, the manner in
which the offence alleged to have been committed, the role
attributed, etc. are required to be considered. In the facts of the
case, whether the amount was paid towards settlement arrived at
regarding the business transaction or it was an amount for the
alleged contract killing can be decided on the basis of the evidence
at the trial. Therefore, without any further elaboration considering
the statement of witnesses and the guidelines with regard to grant of
bail, the present application deserves to be allowed.
6. The
application is accordingly allowed. The applicant is ordered to be
released on bail in connection with C.R. No.II-3015 of 2010
registered with Suigam Police Station, on the applicant executing a
personal bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with one
solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the lower
court subject to further conditions that the applicant :
(a) shall
not take undue advantage of their liberty or abuse his liberty;
(b) shall
not try to tamper or pressurize the prosecution witnesses or the
complainant in any manner;
(c) shall
not act in any manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
(d) shall
maintain law and order and should cooperate with the investigating
officers;
(e) shall
mark his presence before the concerned Police Station
on the first
Monday of every calendar month between 11.00 AM and 02.00 PM till the
trial commences.
(f) shall
furnish address of his residence to the Investigating
Officer and
also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not
change his residence without prior permission of the Court.
(g) shall
surrender his passport, if any, to the lower court, within a week.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Rule
is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(RAJESH
H.SHUKLA, J.)
karim
Top