1. This is an application preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant, who came to be arrested in connection with CR No. I-53 of 2011 registered at Junagadh Taluka Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 364, 394, 114 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
2. Learned counsel Mr. Dagli for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been wrongly implicated in the case. He submitted that from the bare reading of the complaint, there is no role attributed to the applicant. The applicant is not likely to jump the bail, if he is granted bail. He also submitted that the co-accused is released by this Court. He also submitted that from the statement of Mumtaj alias Munni recorded on 2.4.2011 and another statement of Jagdish alias Jago Jadav and in their statement, they have narrated before the Investigating Officer that the deceased was present with the present applicant on motor-cycle. He also submitted that last seen together is a weakest evidence of the prosecution and simply on the basis of statement of aforesaid two persons and simply the issue of last seen together, the bail of the applicant may not be rejected. He also submitted that in this matter, no case is made out about criminal conspiracy hatched by the applicant. He lastly prayed to release the applicant on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.
3. Learned APP Mr. Jani strongly opposed the application of the applicant and submitted that considering the seriousness of offence, in which the applicant is involved, gravity of the offence, quantum of punishment of the alleged offence, discretion may not be exercised in favour of the applicant.
4. Perused the application along with other papers and on perusal of the role attributed to the applicant as reflected in the FIR, police papers, provisions of Sections 302, 364, 394, 114 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, quantum of punishment and prima facie it appears that there is no case made out against the applicant and only on the statement of said Mumtaj and Jago, the applicant has been arrested and the fact that co-accused has been released by this Court, I am of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. At this stage of bail, this Court is not discussing the evidence in detail nor going into merit of the case. This is successive bail application.
5. In view of the above, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail in connection with C.R.No.I-53 of 2011 of Junagadh Taluka Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 394, 114 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. on furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the lower Court and on conditions that the applicant shall :
[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or abuse liberty;
[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
[c] maintain law and order;
[d] mark presence before the concerned Police Station on every last day of each English Calender month between 11.00 a.m. and 2 p.m. till the trial is over;
[e] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;
[f] furnish the address of residence at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;
[g] surrender passport, if any, to the Lower Court immediately.
6. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to take appropriate action in the matter.
7. At the trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.
8. Bail before the Lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(Z.K.SAIYED,J.) ynvyas Top