Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA/7912/2010 3/ 3 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 7912 of 2010 ========================================================= MOHANJI JETHAJI RAJPUT - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR GAURAVKUMAR DARJI for Applicant(s) : 1, MS MINI NIAR, APP for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Date : 04/08/2010 ORAL ORDER
learned Advocate for the applicant and learned A.P.P., appearing for
the respondent State.
has filed this Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for enlarging
him on regular bail in connection with CR No. I 55 of 2010
registered with Deesa (Rural) Police Station, Dist. Banaskantha, for
the offences under Sections 302, 396, 364, 120-B, 201 of I.P. Code
and u/s. 135 of the B.P. Act.
Advocate for the applicant has contended that present applicant is
wrongly involved in the matter. He has contended that in the FIR no
where any allegation is made against the applicant. He has contended
that as per the discovery panchnama only knife is recovered from the
applicant by the Police, however, the applicant is not involved in
the alleged commission of offence. He has contended that the
applicant is a simple and indigent individual doing labour work. He
has contended that even on the basis of the charge-sheet papers the
prosecution has failed to make out prima facie case against the
applicant so far as the offence alleged in the charge-sheet are
concerned. He has contended that only on the basis of discovery
Panchnama the police has booked the present applicant in the alleged
commission of offence.
A.P.P. for the respondent State has vehemently opposed the grant
of this Application. Learned APP has contended that looking to the
discovery panchnama the knife was recovered from the present
applicant accused which prima facie establish the involvement of
the applicant in the offence and, therefore, the present application
for bail filed by the applicant is not required to be entertained by
have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties. I have
also perused the papers produced before me. I have also perused the
discovery panchnama made under Section 135 of the Evidence Act. From
the contents of Panchnama it appears that muddamal knife was
discovered from the present applicant. I have also perused the Post
Mortem Note in which the size of the injury was mentioned which can
be possible by sharp cutting weapon like knife. As per the opinion
of medical expert also, prima facie, it is established that the
deceased has received injury by sharp cutting instrument.
the above facts, I am of the opinion that, prima facie, case is made
out against the present applicant. Therefore, it is not desirable to
exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.
view of above, this application is dismissed. Rule is discharged.