By way of present successive application, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed to release him on regular bail in connection with CR No.I-99 of 2011 registered with Halvad Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and Sec.135 of Bombay Police Act.
It is to be noted that earlier bail application filed after filing the charge sheet was permitted to be withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 7-2-2012 passed in Cri.Misc.Appln.No.676 of 2012.
Heard learned advocate, Mr.Virat Popat for the applicant and Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
It is submitted by learned advocate, Mr.Popat that charge sheet is filed since long and applicant is in jail since 13-11-2011. It is further submitted that complaint is lodged at a belated stage and initially complaint was noted as accidental death case. It is further submitted that other co-accused were released on bail either by this Court or by other Court and hence, on the ground of parity, the applicant be enlarged on bail.
Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has vehemently opposed the present application and contended that the applicant is involved in a serious offence and prima-facie case is made out against the applicant and hence, looking to the serious role alleged against the applicant, he may not be enlarged on bail.
This Court has gone through the charge sheet papers as well as the order passed by the trial court. It is not disputed fact that present applicant was arrested after long lapse of time i.e. after two months and as per the order passed by the Sessions Court, number of offences are registered against the applicant. As per the case of the prosecution, the present applicant inflicted injury to the deceased on his head by giving iron blow and deceased succumbed to those injuries. This is corroborated by the post mortem note and hence, in the opinion of this Court, this application requires to be rejected.
Considering the role alleged against the applicant of causing fatal blow on the deceased, the applicant is not entitled to be released on parity also. As far as earlier version in reference to AD case is concerned, it is of no consequence as subsequently charge sheet is filed and there is evidence of eye witness who is totally independent witness and therefore, question does not arise to discard the version stated by the eye witness which is corroborated with medical evidence. In view of the above, this Court would not like to use its discretion in enlarging the applicant on bail in this successive bail application after filing of charge sheet.
This application is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.
The observations made by this Court in this order being made for the purpose of deciding this application may not prejudice the parties in trial.
[M.D.SHAH,J.] radhan Top