1. Rule. Mr.H.L.Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. The applicant-original accused of Sessions Case No.91 of 2007, who is convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 326, 452 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code has filed the present application for bail. The applicant is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 5 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to further undergo 2 months S.I under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 3 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to further undergo 1 month S.I under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 1 year with fine of Rs.500/- and in default to further undergo 15 days S.I under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. Lastly the applicant is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 6 months with fine of Rs.200/- and in default to further undergo 1 week S.I under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard Mr.V.D.Mewada, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. He has contended that looking to the jail period undergone present applicant is required to be enlarged on bail. He has read evidence of the prosecution case and contended that looking to the injury caused to the injured person this is a fit case to grant the bail. Lastly he has contended that learned Judge has not considered main ingridients of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He has prayed that applicant may be enlarged on bail.
3. Heard Mr.H.L.Jani, learned APP appearing for the respondent - State. He has vehemently opposed the present application. He has contended that prima-facie case is made out against the applicant in which the applicant is involved. He has read panchnama of place of offence and contended that present applicant is assailant. Looking to the panchanama of place of offence both the injured persons have received injury in their home and muddamal axe is recovered from possession of the present applicant. Looking to the medical and circumtantial evidence it is proved that serious injury was received on vital part of the body. It is contended that the offence in question in which applicant is involved is of grave nature and, therefore, the applicant cannot be enlarged on bail.
4. I have heard the learned advocates for both the parties at length and in great detail. I have also gone through the papers. Looking to the record prima-facie it appears that the applicant is involved in the offence in question. The accused person made trespass with the intention to cause hurt and commit serious offence with dangerous weapon like an axe. As per the evidence of victim Bhartiben and Niranjanbhai, accused Deepakbhai entered in their house with an axe in his hand and thereafter he inflicted axe blow to Niranjanbhai and on intervention of his wife Bhartiben accused inflicted axe blows on her neck, eye, ear, chest and abdomen. Prima-facie it appears that the present applicant is involved in the offence in question.
5. Considering the above facts and position and also considering the various judgments of this High Court as well as Supreme Court the present applicant in my view cannot be enlarged on bail.
6 At the time of hearing of bail application, the Court is required to see whether there is prima facie involvement of the accused in commission of offence or not. Looking to the papers produced before me, it is clearly established that the applicant is involved in the offence alleged against him.
7. For the foregoing reasons, as the applicant is prima-facie involved in the offence in question which is serious in nature, the prayer for enlarging present applicant on bail cannot be considered leniently. In the result, this application deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly it is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(Z.
K. SAIYED, J) kks Top