Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. Both these applications are filed by the applicant, who is one of the witnesses of the offences registered as CR No.I-21 of 2002 with Radhanpur Police Station for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 435, 436, 386, 336, 353, 427, 188 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Later on, Investigating Agency added Section 302 of the IPC, with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 24.11.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Patan in Misc. Criminal Application Nos.393 and 394 of 2005.
3. The accused were granted anticipatory bail by the competent court of law on 03.11.2005 and 05.11.2005 respectively under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thereafter, when the accused preferred application for regular bail, the learned Judge enlarged the accused persons on bail in exercise of powers under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vide order dated 24.11.2005, after considering the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer with regard to addition of Section 302 of IPC against the accused.
4. Upon a specific query raised by this Court, nothing is brought on the record of this Court showing that the accused have either attempted or committed breach of any of the conditions imposed by the court while enlarging them on bail. Learned advocate for the applicant is not in unable to dispute the above fact.
5. Learned counsel for the accused, relying on the affidavits-in-reply filed in each of the cases, submitted that the accused are falsely implicated; they have roots in the society; have no criminal antecedents and will be available during the trial.
6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and and considering the fact that now the case is committed to the Court of Sessions and charge is already framed and in absence of any illegality in exercise of powers under section 439 of the Code and apprehension with regard to thereat, coercion, etc., and keeping in mind the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhagirathsinh Jadeja v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1984 SC 372, this application to cancel the regular bail granted by the competent court of law, is rejected.
5. However, it will be open for the applicant to approach the concerned authority in accordance with direction given by the Apex Court with regard to protection of witnesses in the case of National Human Rights Commission v. State of Gujarat [(2009)6 SCC 767] and in such eventuality the State Agency shall accord due and adequate protection to the applicant and like witnesses in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid, both these applications stand disposed of.
Notice issued in each of the applications stand disposed of.
[Anant S. Dave, J.] *pvv Top