1. By way of present application, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed to release him on regular bail in connection with C.R.No.I-298 of 2011 registered with Vatva Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Learned senior advocate Mr. S.V. Raju with Mr. Umot appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been wrongly implicated in the alleged offence. He also submitted that there is no prima facie case or evidence against the applicant to link the applicant with the alleged offence. He also submitted that in the present case, the policeman has received injury and therefore, the present applicant has been booked wrongly in the case. The policeman and others, who are shown as witnesses, have received minor injuries due to their own negligent act. He also submitted that the present applicant was not arrested on the spot. He read the provisions of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and submitted that the ingredients are not established. He also submitted that at the most, this is a case, in which the accused may be held liable for the offence punishable under Sections 337 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that injured person Mr. Ashokbhai Premjibhia Jagotiya has received accidental injury and, therefore, the offence can be said to be covered within the meaning of Sections 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. Here in this case, the police has wrongly booked the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, however, looking to the injuries received by the injured, the ingredients of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, are not attracted to the case of the applicant. He also submitted that present applicant is in jail since 7 months.
3. He also relied upon one decision in the case of Bhausaheb Nagu Dhavare Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in [2001] 2 CCR 26901 and submitted that in that case, the accused involved in the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, was enlarged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on bail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "offence being escalated to higher counts". He prayed to enlarge the applicant by imposing suitable conditions.
4. Learned APP Mr. Jani strongly opposed the bail application of the applicant. He read the complaint and submitted that the police has received information that present applicant was coming in a vehicle with prohibited liquor and in connection of that, the P.S.I. of Surveillance Squad, Vatva Police Station managed trap to catch the applicant red handed. As per plan, when the signal was given for stopping the vehicle, the driver took the vehicle on reverse side and drove the vehicle in very rash and negligent manner and therefore, the complainant caught the left side door of the vehicle and the complainant was dragged upto 100 meters distance as he was holding the left door of the vehicle. Therefore, the injured received injury due to impact of the angle which was fixed on shop and thereby also, the applicant tried to kill the said complainant- policeman, who was discharging his duty in chasing the applicant, who was coming with prohibited liquor in his vehicle. Learned APP Mr. Jani also submitted that upon verification, it is found that the car is having bogus number plate. He also submitted that number of FIRs have been registered against the present applicant. He also submitted that the present applicant is a bootlegger and anti-social element. He submitted that the policeman has performed his duty diligently and sincerely and he has tried to catch hold of the applicant. When the police gave signal of stopping the vehicle, the applicant and his driver tried to abscond by driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. He also read the injury certificate of the victim policeman. He also submitted that the witness Shri Ashok Jagotiya obtained treatment from L.G. Hospital for a period of one and half months. He also submitted that due to the accident, hip of said witness is displaced and he has also received other injuries over his body. He also submitted that in such type of case, if the accused is enlarged on bail, then the moral of the policemen, who are performing their duties sincerely, would be adversely affected. Therefore, bail is not required to be granted to the applicant.
5. Heard the parties and perused the application along with papers. In this case, the complainant is a policeman, who has received serious injuries in chasing the applicant, who was coming with prohibited liquor. The complainant performed his duties sincerely and diligently and he indicated to stop the vehicle, but the driver and applicant did not care to stop the vehicle and on the contrary, the driver drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. The complainant and other policemen chased the vehicle, wherein the prohibited liquor was being taken and in doing so, the complainant and other witness received serious injuries. I do not agree with the submissions of the learned senior advocate Mr. S.V. Raju that the said policemen were not in their uniform. The policemen of Surveillance Squad are always in civilian dress and when they are performing their duties like chasing such kind of person, it is not required for them to wear police dress, otherwise, it would be very difficult for them to catch the accused and their area is fixed for doing their duties. Present applicant had knowledge about the complainant and other persons being the policemen. When the signal was given by the policemen, the applicant tried to escape from that place. Also the fact that other offences have been registered against the applicant. Therefore, the conduct of the applicant is required to be considered. At this stage also, the provisions of Section 8 of the Evidence Act are required to be taken into consideration. I am in agreement with the submissions of the learned APP Mr. Jani that if such accused person are released on bail, it will affect the moral of the policemen. Therefore, such accused is not required to be released on bail. Even the registration No. of vehicle is found bogus. The applicant is a bootlegger and anti-social element and therefore, the applicant is not required to be granted bail.
In view of the above observations, the bail application is rejected. Rule is discharged.
(Z.K.SAIYED,J.) ynvyas Top