Rule.
Learned advocate Shri Jayesh A Dave appears and waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 2. Learned APP Shri L.R Pujari appears and waives service of rule on behalf of respondent no.3-State.
Challenging the order of learned 6th Addl. Sesssions Judge, Bhuj-Kachchh rendered in Special Case No. 32 of 2010, rejecting the application of the applicant herein vide Exh. 4 praying for cancellation of bail of the respondent no.1, this Application is preferred under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner herein has filed a complaint being II-C.R No. 68 of 2009 against the respondent Kheta Khegar Rabari and one Kala Hira Rabari on 16th December 2009 under Section 3 (1) & (10) of the Atrocity Act and Sections 504 & 114 IPC. It is the say of the petitioner that the investigation has culminated into a chargesheet and a Criminal Case No. 214 of 2010 is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nakatrana Court.
An application was moved before the Nakatrana Court to cancel the bail of the respondents on 8th July 2010 and the Court, after hearing both the sides, had been pleased to reject the same. Yet another application Exh. 4 which was moved in Special Case No. 32 of 2010 wherein the Court did not deem it fit to allow the said application, inter alia, for rejecting the bail granted to the respondents.
Learned advocate Shri Jayesh A Dave appearing for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 urges that the trial has already begun and five witnesses have also been examined, however, complainant is not remaining present for which, the Court had to issue warrants for the purpose of recording his deposition.
According to learned advocate Shri Modi appearing for the applicant-complainant submitted that there is no reason for the applicant not to remain present, however some of the witnesses have been won-over by the respondents, and therefore, there is a need to cancel the bail granted to the opponents herein.
Learned APP Shri Pujari confirms that the trial is being proceeded with and according to him, no complaint has been received from any of the witnesses with regard to misuse of liberty by the accused.
Considering the nature of crime as also keeping in mind the fact that the dispute arose in the matter of election between the two rival fractions, and considering the fact that the trial has substantially marked progress where the petitioner-complainant is required to remain present and the accused having been enlarged on bail right from 19th May 2010, this petition is not being entertained since no grounds are made out for cancellation of the bail.
Learned advocate for the applicant-complainant ensures to cooperate in the trial by remaining present; as directed by the trial Court.
With the aforementioned observations, this application fails and is rejected. Rule is discharged. None of the observations made hereinabove shall influence the trial Court in deciding Special Case No. 32 of 2010 pending before him.
{Ms.
Sonia Gokani, J.} Prakash*\ Top