Heard learned Advocate Mr.Gamara for the petitioner and Ms. CM Shah, learned APP for respondent No.2.
Petitioner-original complainant has filed this petition to quash and set aside order dated 5.1.2012 granting temporary bail to respondent No. 1 who is accused of I- CR No. 67 of 2009 registered before Sarkhej Police Station under section 395, 365, 346, 327, 323, 504 and 506(2) of the IP Code, with a prayer to cancel the temporary bail granted to respondent No.1.
By order dated 5.1.2012, the learned Judge has granted temporary bail to respondent no. 1 for a period from 6.1.2012 to 21.1.2012 on the ground that the wife of respondent no.1 is required to be operated upon in the opinion of the Dr. Sarda as per the Medical Certificate dated 3.1.2012 annexed as Annexure-B page 18.
Learned Advocate Mr. Gamara for the petitioner has argued that in fact, there is no actual necessity or need of the operation of the wife of respondent no.1 but since the cross examination of some important prosecution witnesses is going on, the respondent no.1 has created ground of operation of his wife to get himself released on temporary bail with an intention to tamper with or win over the important prosecution witnesses. He also submitted that since the respondent no.1 is an accused in a serious offence like loot etc. and since the trial of the accused is at very important stage, learned Judge ought not to have exercised discretion at such a stage of granting even a single day's temporary bail in favour of respondent no.1. He further submitted that even if the wife of respondent no. 1 was to be operated as per the medical certificate, operation to be conducted is not of a serious nature and such operation or any other medical treatment could be taken by the wife of respondent no.1 with the help of other family members/relatives and there was no imminent necessity for respondent no.1 to get himself released to help out to his wife. He further submitted that when the cross examination of the star witnesses from the prosecution side is to take place, it will be in the interest of justice not to release the accused of such a serious offence on temporary bail. He therefore prayed to cancel the temporary bail granted in favour of respondent no.1 by order dated 5.1.2012.
Ms.
CM Shah, learned APP appearing for respondent NO.2 State has also been heard.
I have perused the order passed by the learned Judge dated 5.1.2012 granting temporary bail to respondent no.1 for a period from 6.1.2012 to 21.1.2012. In fact, the period of temporary bail granted by the learned Judge is near on completion. Temporary bail is to expire on 21.1.2012. Even apart from this, temporary bail is granted to respondent no.1 on various conditions. The learned Judge has exercised his discretion of granting temporary bail to respondent no.1 on the basis of medical certificate. Learned Advocate for the petitioner could not point out that the order passed by the learned Judge is erroneous or the discretion exercised by the learned Judge in granting temporary bail to respondent NO.1 is not sound discretion. In fact, when the learned Judge has exercised discretion granting temporary bail and when the respondent no.1 has already enjoyed the temporary bail under the order passed by the learned Judge for a period of about eleven days, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge and to cancel the temporary bail granted to respondent no.1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has vehemently urged and demonstrated the apprehension on the part of the complainant by stating that the respondent no.1 is facing trial of serious offence and the cross examination of the important witnesses of prosecution is going on and there is clear designed game plan adopted by respondent no.1 to get himself released on bail at such important stage of trial by getting the medical certificate. He, therefore, states that if there is no proper check, then, it may be that the respondent no.1 may utilise his time of temporary bail in trying to win over the witnesses who are to be examined and cross examined and to tamper with the evidence of prosecution.
However, this is not a ground for interfering with the order passed by the learned Judge granting temporary bail to respondent no.1. It is always open for petitioner to bring to the notice of the learned Judge as and when respondent no.1 who is released on temporary bail attempts to tamper with or indulge into any activities to win over the witnesses.
With these observations, this application is rejected.
(C.L.
Soni,J.) an vyas Top