Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/649/2010 2/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 649 of 2010
=========================================================
RAVIRAJ
KRISHNARAO GAEKWAD - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ND NANAVATI FOR MS. KRUTI M SHAH for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR HL JANI,
ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 22/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
This
is an application preferred under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 by the applicant who is apprehending his arrest in
connection with CR No. I-386 of 2009 registered with Fatehganj
police station, Vadodara City, for the offence punishable under
Sections 307, 323, 504, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code.
Mr.
N.D. Nanavati, learned Sr. Advocate, appearing with Ms. Kruti M Shah
for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person
and he has not committed any alleged offence as narrated in the FIR.
The applicant was present when the incident in question took place
and he gave one baseball stick blow on the back of the complainant.
Considering the aforesaid role, the applicant deserves to be granted
anticipatory bail as prayed for in the application.
Learned
Sr. Advocate has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of Harpreet Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, reported in
[2005] 11 Supreme Court Cases 551, in support of the submission
that the applicant is a student and considering the fact that there
is no criminal antecedent, prayer for anticipatory bail deserves to
be considered.
Learned
APP Mr. H.L. Jani, representing the opponent Sate, while opposing the
anticipatory bail application, submitted that considering the role
attributed to the applicant as reflected in the FIR at Annexure:A to
the application, the applicant was present at the scene of offence
and he also participated in the assault which was committed by him
along with other accused on the complainant. The applicant was armed
with baseball stick and gave blow on the back portion of the
complainant. Thus, when prima facie involvement of the applicant is
indicated, discretionary relief in favour of the applicant may not be
granted and the application deserves to be rejected.
I
have considered the rival submissions canvassed by the learned
counsel of both the sides and the written submissions given by the
applicant. The applicant is involved in the offence punishable under
sections 307, 323, 504, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC. On perusal of
the FIR, the role attributed to the applicant becomes clear. The
applicant, was present at the scene of offence when the scuffle took
place. He was armed with baseball stick and gave stick blow on the
back portion of the complainant. Thus, participation of the applicant
is also indicated on perusal of the record of the case and
considering the aforesaid aspect, the applicant, in my view, would
not be entitled to claim anticipatory bail as prayed for in the
application. I have also considered the judgment cited by the
applicant. There is no dispute about the ratio or proposition laid
down by the Apex Court. However, the said judgment would not be
helpful to the applicant in this case. This Court is also aware of
the fact that powers under Section 438 of the Code can be exercised
only in exceptional and rare circumstances. Considering the
involvement of the applicant, his case, in my view, would not fall
under the exceptional category.
For
the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the application and the
same is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.
[H.B.
ANTANI, J.]
pirzada/-
Top