IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 17889 of 2011 With CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 17890 of 2011 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial question of law 4 as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
========================================= MADHUBEN W/O HARIBHAI NAGJIBHAI BHARVAD -
Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================= Appearance :
MR YATIN OZA, SR. ADV. with MR DHAWAN M JAYSWAL for Applicant(s) : 1, MR LR PUJARI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, MR SV RAJU, SR. ADV. with MR. BHADRISH S RAJU for Respondent(s) : 2 - 4.
========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI Date : 6/8/2012 CAV JUDGMENT
1. This applications preferred under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of bail are being decided by a common order as both arise out of the same complaint registered as CR No.I-92 of 2011 with Naranpura police station. Challenge made is to the grant of regular bail in favour of respondents No.2,3 and 4 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 17889 of 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad vide order dated 8.7.2011 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2312 of 2011 and grant of regular bail to respondent No.2 of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 17890 of 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad vide order dated 2.8.2011 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2661 of 2011.
2. Briefly to state the facts, the complaint is of 29.3.2011 forming incident that took place on 28.3.2011. Accused No.1 of the complaint Kantibhai Bharwad had banged his motorcycle to the buffalo of the complainant. On being asked as to why he did so, the said accused started abusing the complainant and that dispute ended due to intervention. On 29.3.2011 accused No.1 passed by the house of the complainant along with his buffaloes and for no reasons he once again started abusing the complainant and his family members. In a flash of time, all the other accused too joined accused No.1. The husband of the complainant in order to buy peace, asked the accused person to go away from the scene.
However, brother of Kantilal came rushing to the place and they started pelting stones on the complainant and on all her family members and, thereafter, accused No.4 had hit the complainant on his head with stick and accused No.1 Kantibhai took out the knife and stabbed the husband of of the complainant leading to his death.
3. A complaint was registered with Naranpura police station being C.R.No.I-92 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 337,294(A),143,147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. Chargesheet was filed against all the accused on 10.6.2011. All the accused Nos.2 to 6 were granted regular bail by the Sessions Court. Aggrieved by such an order present application has been preferred.
4. It is the case of the complainant that all the accused had formed unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object had led to the death of deceased Haribhai.
5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Yatin Oza appearing for the original complainant fervently urged this Court that specific act though is attributed to the accused No.1, by virtue of a common object the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has been committed. Therefore, none could not have been enlarged on bail, there is also a likelihood of their escaping on being enlarged on bail and tampering with the witness in serious case of murder, a request is made to quash the said bail.
Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Oza further submitted that the death of the deceased was not spontaneous. It was the result of pre-meditated conspiracy. There was already verbal exchange resulting into altercation the previous evening. Therefore, the version of the complainant, who is injured eye- witness, has to be believed and none of the accused could be enlarged on bail in a murder trial when the charges are under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. He also urged that common object could be formed instantaneously also. He sought to rely on the following decisions:-
(1) Yunis alias Kariya vs. State of M.P., AIR 2003 SC 539.
(2) In the case of Bharat Tapubhai Vala and anr. vs.
State of Gujarat and Ors. decided by the Apex Court on 14.12.2011.
(3) Rajubhai Pithabhai Vala vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., 2011(3) G.L.H.42 In the case of Yunis alias Kariya vs. State of M.P.
(supra), the Apex Court has held that the presence of accused as part of unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction and even if there is no over act imputed to him as being member of unlawful assembly and his presence at the place of occurrence, if is not disputed, conviction can still be followed.
In the case of Bharat Tapubhai Vala and anr. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.(supra), the Supreme Court held that no justifiable reason has been stated for denying the bail to the appellant before it, while granting bail to other co- accused. However, this decision has no ratio and, therefore, requires no further discussion.
In the case of Rajubhai Pithabhai Vala vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.(supra) this Court found that while considering the bail application of the accused though the accused were found armed with deadly weapons and prima facie found to be members of unlawful assembly, being more than 5 persons, the filing of cross-complaint by the accused also endorses the happening of the incident and vindicates the presence of the accused at the scene of offence. The Court also noted the fact that securing presence of the accused would be very difficult if they were set at liberty and when these aspects were not taken into consideration and when the accused were charged with offence punishable under Sections 143,147,149,302 etc. and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, the Court held that the ground of bail was wrong and it was an arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion and, resultantly, cancelled the bail. It would be worthwhile to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court:-
9.3 In the case of Sikandar Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar reported in 2010(7) SCC 477 paras 15 & 17 read as under:
15. The provision has essentially two ingredients viz.
(i) the commission of an offence by any member of an unlawful assembly and (ii) such offence must be committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly or must be such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. Once it is established that the unlawful assembly had common object, it is not necessary that all persons forming the unlawful assembly must be shown to have committed some overt act. For the purpose of incurring the vicarious liability for the offence committed by a member of such unlawful assembly under the provision, the liability of other members of the unlawful assembly for the offence committed during the continuance of the occurrence, rests upon the fact whether the other members knew before hand that the offence actually committed was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object.
17. A `common object' does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the attack. It is enough if each member of the unlawful assembly has the same object in view and their number is five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve that object. The `common object' of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members composing it, and from a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances. It may be gathered from the course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly. For determination of the common object of the unlawful assembly, the conduct of each of the members of the unlawful assembly, before and at the time of attack and thereafter, the motive for the crime, are some of the relevant considerations. What the common object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage of the incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined, keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the members, and the behaviour of the members at or near the scene of the incident. It is not necessary under law that in all cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common object, the same must be translated into action or be successful.
10. In the present case, the respondents accused themselves have in their affidavit in reply admitted that a fight had taken place at the scene of offence, it is clear that when the accused persons assembled together, armed with swords, iron pipes and gun and were parties to the assault on the complainant party, the prosecution is not obliged to prove which specific overt act was done by which of the accused. This section makes a member of the unlawful assembly responsible as a principal for the acts of each, and all, merely because he is a member of an unlawful assembly. While overt act and active participation may indicate common intention of the person perpetrating the crime, the mere presence in the unlawful assembly may fasten vicariously criminal liability under section 149. It must be noted that the basis of the constructive guilt under section 149 is mere membership of the unlawful assembly, with the requisite common object or knowledge.
11. Thus, from the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that once the Court holds that certain accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and an offence is committed by any member of that assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly every person who at the time of committing of that offence was a member of the same assembly is to be held guilty of that offence. After such a finding it would not be open to the Court to see as to who actually did the offensive act or require the prosecution to prove which of the members did which of the offensive acts. The prosecution would have no obligation to prove it.”
6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. S. V. Raju relied on the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondents. He also relied on various judgments of the Apex Court to bring home the point that rejection of bail in non-bailable case and cancellation of bail both will have to be dealt with on different considerations and cancellation of bail requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances when once granted on legal basis.
In all these judgments it is held that bail cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner and it shall need to be considered whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it necessary before cancelling the bail of the accused.
7. On thus having heard learned advocates for the parties and on having duly considered the submissions of both the sides, it emerges that the husband of the complainant died on account of stab wound injuries, as can be noted from the record. Learned Additional Sessions Judge noted from the FIR that these injuries were committed with the knife by accused Kantibhai Raghubhai, who is not before this Court. Such wounds were inflected on the chest as well as on the right side of his chest. The Court also noted that respondent No.2 herein had abused the deceased and FIR is also indicative of his having hit him with the stick. Submissions made are to the effect that in furtherance of the common object, deceased Haribhai has been attacked and he resultantly died. However, the Court, having noted the individual role of the accused, was of the opinion that, as the trial would take longer time, no pre- trial conviction should be effected. It considered the individual role of the accused from the overall circumstances, nature of details given in the complaint, the manner in which the quarrel was started, the heat that was generated on account of verbal exchange and pelting of stones and giving blow by the stick was followed by injuries with knife. This application concerns not Kantibhai Raghubhai but other respondents, who had allegedly different roles including giving of stick blow by Rajubhai Raghubhai Bharvad. The Court, after cumulative reading of the papers as also on perusal of the post mortem note, prima facie, was of the opinion that grant of bail to the respondents would be necessary, no supervening circumstances are made out to deny the respondents their freedom during pendency of trail on the grounds that have been raised by the complainant.
8. Though attempt is made on the part of the complainant to point out that keeping enmosity of the earlier day in the mind, the accused have gathered by way of unlawful assembly, resulting into murder of the deceased, on close examination of FIR, it appears prima facie that the incident on the date of murder took place when there was a fresh exchange of abuse and hearing such acrimonious exchange of words, other accused ( present respondents) rushed to the place resulting into giving stab blows with the knife by the accused No.1 Kartilal who is not before this Court. Therefore, it is not possible to interfere with the order of learned Sessions Judge and cancel the bail of the accused on the ground that as the accused were the members of the unlawful assembly there overt act is not to be regarded even at the stage of grant of bail in a criminal trial.
9. . Each case will have to be appreciated on the basis of the facts as they emerge. It would not be desirable for this Court to dilate these factual details and evaluate the evidence at this stage as that may prejudice the case of the either side suffice to hold at this stage that no case is made out by the complainant for cancelling the bail.
10. . In all the judgments relied upon by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Raju it is clear that bail cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner. The Court will have to regard as to whether any overwhelming circumstances exist not to allow the accused to retain his freedom.
11. It not concluded at this stage that respondents are not liable under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of the deceased however, when from record, it emerges that accused No.1 started quarrelling with complainant and later on other accused poured in hearing the shouts. Therefore, it is not possible to say that unlawful assembly was formed with an intention to commit murder of the deceased. The incident happened appears to have happened on the heat of the moment and, therefore, at the stage of bail this grant cannot be questioned..
12. By employing Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the challenge made to the grant of regular bail is not sustainable. Individual role and collective responsibility of the accused will be required to be considered at the time of trial. Particularly, when the offence was not as a result of pre-meditation but appears to be on account of the emotions which ran high due to the acrimonious exchange of words.
13. Request of cancellation of bail is not being acceded to.
However, it is clarified that all grounds, in view of the above discussion, raised in the memo of application, particularly of employing Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the complainant or the prosecution shall be at liberty to raise such issue at the time of trial and none of the observations made hereinabove shall come in the way of either parties.
Application is disposed of accordingly.
(Ms.Sonia Gokani, J.) sudhir