1 The original complainant – Jetubhai Naranbhai Vaghosi filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 10805 of 2012 under the provisions of Section 482 read with Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short) before this Court whereby challenged the Order dated 11.7.2012 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 421 of 2012, releasing the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 on regular bail. The said application came to be entertained by this Court by issuing notice to the respondents accused on 31.7.2012 which was made returnable on 24.8.2012. During the pendency of the said application, the State of Gujarat also challenged the said order passed by the learned Sessions Court, Bhavnagar, releasing the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 on regular by way of filing Criminal Misc. Application No. 12924 of 2012 under the provisions of Sections 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code. This Court issued Rule in the matter on 7.9.2012 which was made returnable on 21.9.2012. Pursuant to which, the respondents – accused appeared in the matter through their learned Advocate. Since challenge in both the aforesaid applications is against the same order, these matters are ordered to be heard together. Respondents – accused have filed their Affidavit-in-reply in Criminal Misc. Application No.12924 of 2012 filed by the State of Gujarat on 29.9.2012.
2 Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the State of Gujarat, Mr. K.B. Anandjiwala, learned Advocate appearing for the original complainant and learned Advocate Mr. N.K. Majumdar assisted by learned Advocate Mr. Khambhoja for the accused.
3 Brief facts emerges from the case papers are as under:
3.1 That on 21st March, 2012, at about 18.00 hours, one Jetubhai Naranbhai Vaghosi, lodged a complaint with Police Sub- Inspector, Palitana Rural Police Station, Bhavnagar District, which came to be registered at CR No. I-14 of 2012 against six accused persons by their names and against two unknown persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the said complaint that all these accused persons attacked the complainant as well as his father with deadly weapons like dharia, sword, knife etc. It was alleged in the FIR that when the complainant along with his father Naranbhai, was traveling on his motorcycle which was driven by his father and when they reached near a canal, a car came from the backside and overtook his motorcycle and stopped in front of the motor cycle. Pursuant to which, the motorcycle skidded off the road and, therefore, they were compelled to go off the road and at that time accused Madhubhai Bhimabhai Mer, having dharia in his hand, accused Sarabhai Jivabhai Ranani, having sword in his hand and accused Panchabhai Lakhabhai Chavda, having sword in his hand and other two persons having sword and knife in their hands, came out of the car and attacked his father with those deadly weapons. Pursuant to which,his father sustained several severe injuries on his head, face and other parts of the body and all the persons gave indiscriminatory blows on his father. Having found accused with deadly weapons and attacking his father, the complainant raised shouts. Pursuant to which, his relative Ravatbhai Vasurbhai came there and having found other persons at the place of incident, all these accused persons left the place of incident. Since the father of the complainant had sustained serious injuries, he was shifted to the Government Hospital at Palitana in an ambulance where the Doctor declared him dead. It was alleged in the FIR that the reason for the attack upon the father of the complainant was an incident which took place about four months between two communities in which one of the relatives of the accused side had lost his life, and his father, being a leader of one community was the target.
3.2 Pursuant to the said complaint, the police started investigation and arrested the accused persons and after completion of the investigation, filed charge sheet in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Palitana for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondents along with other two accused filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 421 of 2012 under Section 439 of the Code in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge at Bhavnagar and prayed to release them on bail during the pendency of the trial. The application was opposed by the State of Gujarat as well as by the complainant by filing objections to considering the case of the accused for bail.
3.3 The Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, by order dated 11.7.2012 partly allowed the said application and released the present respondents on regular bail, however, refused bail, qua, the two other applicants.
4 The grievance made by the State of Gujarat as well as the original complainant is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, has not assigned any reasons for releasing the respondents on regular bail in a serious offence of murder. It was argued that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in accepting the say of the original accused No.1 Madhubhai Bhimabhai Mer of his alibi, when alibi is yet to be established. The defence of alibi can be established by the accused only by examining the defence witnesses. Even otherwise, the alibi is treated as weak piece of evidence and unless the same is proved by the accused, the court has to prima facie decide about the involvement of the accused. It was further argued that the complaint which was lodged immediately after the incident wherein the name of original accused No.1 was given by the complainant and when other two eye witnesses have also named this accused in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code, in absence of any material, the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have accepted the say of the accused No.1 about his defence of alibi. It was further argued that the learned Sessions Judge has referred to several judgments in the impugned order but he has not even examined or referred the allegations made in the FIR as well as the allegations made by the eye witnesses who have involved all these accused in the crime and have attributed the role played by each of them.
5 Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri has submitted that it is bounden duty of the Sessions Court, while considering the case of the accused for releasing them on regular bail, to keep in mind certain aspects, which are laid down by catena of decisions of the Apex Court. In support of her submission, she has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case Puran vs. Rambilas And Anr. as reported at (2001) 6 SCC 338; in the case of Chaman Lal vs. State of UP and Anr., as reported in (2004) 7 SCC 525; in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr., as reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528; in the case of Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., as reported in (2008) 3 SCC 775 and in the case of Panchanan Mishra vs. Digambar Mishra & Ors., as reported in (2005) 3 SCC 143. By relying upon these judgments, she submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has not examined the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in case of conviction as well as has also not examined the corroborating evidence collected by the Investigating Agency. The learned Sessions Judge has wrongly arrived at the conclusion that he was prima facie satisfied that the respondents were entitled for bail when overwhelming evidence in the nature of three eye witnesses was available for its appreciation.
6 Mr. K.B. Anandjiwala, learned Advocate, appearing for the original complainant, would submit that the accused are rightly charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 and Section 143, etc of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC since accused had pre-planned to commit the offence. He would further submit that when the complainant as well as the deceased were on their motorcycles having no arms in their hands, they were attacked with deadly weapons like sword, dharia, knife etc. He would submit that an incident which took place four months prior to the present one and in the said incident, uncle of respondent No.1 had lost his life and, therefore the accused persons had planned to do away the deceased since he was leader of the opposite party. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Kadam vs. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta & Anr., as reported at AIR 2011 SC 1945. By relying upon the said judgment, he submitted that, the learned Sessions Court has not considered the gravity and nature of the offence at the time of deciding the application under Section 439 of the Code. He would submit that if the complaint as well as the statements of witnesses are perused and if the background of the incident is looked into, there are serious allegations against each of the accused who have attacked the deceased with deadly weapons and, therefore, looking to the gravity of the offence and severity of sentence, in case of conviction, the Sessions Court ought not to have granted bail to the respondents – accused.
7. On the other hand, Mr. N.K. Majumdar, learned Advocate, assisted by Mr. Khambholja for the accused submitted that the respondents are released on regular bail by the Sessions Court after filing of the charge sheet and after perusing the material collected by the investigating agency in the form of statements of different witnesses as well as other documentary evidence like panchnama of scene of offence, inquest panchnama, etc. and therefore the High Court would be slow in canceling the bail when the discretion has been exercised by the Sessions Court in favour of accused persons. While considering the case for bail, the courts are expected to examine the aspects, namely, possibility of tampering with the evidence, availability of the accused persons at the time of trial and threats to the witnesses. He submitted that all these aspects are considered by the learned Sessions Court while considering the case of the respondents– accused. He submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has exhaustively dealt with the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court with regard to considering the case for releasing the accused on regular bail during the pendency of the trial and, therefore, no interference is required in this case. He would further argue that under following circumstances, the bail granted can be cancelled:
i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity,
ii) interferes with the course of investigation;
iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses;
iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation;
v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country;
vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going undergoing or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency; and
vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc.
7.1 Learned Advocate Mr. N.K.Majmudar, for the respondents – accused in support of his submission, has relied upon the following decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court:
i) in the case of Dolat Ram & Ors. vs. State of Haryana, as reported at (1995) 1 SCC 349;
ii) in the case of Jetha Bhaya Odedara vs. Ganga Maldebhai Odedara & Anr., as reported at 2012 (1) GLH 601;
iii) in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad vs. Subramani Gopalakrishnan & Anr., reported at (2011) 5 SCC 296;
iv) in the case of Hazarilal Das vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., as reported at (2009) 10 SCC 652;
v) in the case of Savitri Agarwal & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., as reported at (2009) 8 SCC 325;
vi) in the case of Gurcharan Singh & Ors., vs. State (Delhi Administration) as reported at (1978) 1 SCC 118;
vii) in the case of Bhagirathsinh Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat, as reported at AIR 1984 SC 372; and
viii) in the case of Raghuvir Singh vs. State of Bihar, as reported in (1986) 4 SCC 481.
7.2 Mr. Majmudar further submitted that after the respondents – accused were released from bail way back on 11th July, 2012, no untoward incident has been reported against the accused or any allegations are made by the State or complainant that the accused persons have threatened the witness or have tried to win over the witnesses or have tampered with any type of evidence and, therefore, in absence of such allegations, the petitions deserve to be dismissed. In support of his submission, Mr.
Majmudar relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dolat Ram (supra) and submitted that once the bail is granted, the same should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.
7.3 Mr. Majmudar, relying upon the above mentioned judgments, submitted that there are different yardsticks for granting bail and cancelling the same by the superior courts. He further submitted that, the Trial Court has rightly examined the evidence on record in detail and has rightly come to the conclusion that, no prima facie case is made out against the accused persons. He further submitted that so far as the respondent No.1 is concerned, by producing medical certificates, the accused was able to prima facie establish that he was not at all in the village when the alleged incident took place, and he was undergoing treatment at a hospital, which is situated about 400 kms away from the scene of offence and, therefore, the learned Sessions Court has committed no error in considering the case of the respondents enlarging them on regular bail.
7.4 Mr. Majmudar, learned Advocate for the respondents – accused relying upon the aforesaid decisions, submitted that the learned Sessions Court has rightly come to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case in favour of the accused and that they were entitled to bail and released them on regular bail during the trial and therefore, at this stage, no interference in the order passed by the Trial Court is warranted and both the applications may kindly be dismissed.
7.5 As far as alibi pleaded in support of the case of the respondent No.1 is concerned, in the case of Naresh Pal Singh vs. Raj Karn & Anr., as reported at (1999) 9 SCC 104, the Apex Court has cancelled the bail granted by the lower court only on accepting the plea of alibi and remanded the case for fresh hearing with direction to consider all the relevant material on record. Learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar has, for the respondents – accused relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mansab Ali vs. Irsan & Anr., as reported in AIR 2003 SC 707, argued that if the court finds that the order of the Sessions Judge is not a speaking order, the matter be remanded to the Sessions Judge for fair consideration and the accused shall be continued on bail during the period that the Sessions Judge consider the case afresh and in support of the case he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court .
8 I have heard the learned Advocates appears for the respective parties and have perused the papers of investigation produced by the learned APP with regard to the investigation carried out by the Officers. The following facts are emerging from the face of record of the case which are as under:
i) the complainant - Jetubhai Naranbhai Vaghosi was traveling on a motor cycle along with his father who was driving the vehicle;
ii) at that time, the respondents – accused along with two persons came in a car and compelled the complainant and his father to stop their vehicle beside the road. All the accused persons had deadly weapons like sword, dharia, knife, etc in their hands whereas the complainant and the deceased had no weapons with them. Before they tried to escape, all the accused persons attacked the deceased with the said deadly weapons and caused indiscriminate blows. The respondents-accused persons attacked only the deceased as it appears from the papers that prior to four months of the present incident, an incident took place between two communities wherein one of the relatives of the accused persons had lost his life and the deceased being the leader of the opposite party, he was the target for the attacking party;
iii) if the postmortem note of the deceased is looked into, he sustained serious injuries on the head, face, hands etc. The injuries found on the body of the deceased mentioned in Column-17 of the Postmortem Note are reproduced hereunder:
External injuries are described as below
1) Incised wound present over chin of size about 19x10x10 cms extending 6 cms away from right ear upto 8 cms away from left ear, causing number of lower jaw (manipulable bone) in midlife crushing muscle, neck vessels and larynx and trachea. Bleeding surrounding swelling margins of wound are clean cut. Directed transversely.
2) Another oblique incised wound present over upper saw cutting upper lip obliquely in left external direction, merging incised wound of child in left lateral direction.
3) Two incised wound present over left ear crossing each other, cutting the ear pinna one is small of size 5 x 3 x 3 cm. Vertical. Other is large of size 10 x 6 x 6 cm running obliquely slight horizontal in direction over temporal area.
4) Incised wound of size 10 x 5 x 5 cm present extending from base of nose fracturing bridge of nose and extend upto right eye causing crushing of right eyeball and upper and lower lid muscle bleeding. Fracture of frontal parietal, temporal, occipital bone present.
5) Incised stab penetrating wound present over left half of frontal bone/area extending frontal area, parietal, temporal, occipital area of size 25 x 10 x 10 cm, piercing the brain tissue cells and brain matter and meninges exposed out.
6) Incised wound present behind the right of size 10 x 5 x 3 cms . Bone deep.
7) Incised wound of size 3 x 2 x 2cms present over Rt. Side of chest below right clavicle about 6 cms wound upto muscle deep.
8) One lacerated wound present over left shoulder on medial aspect of size 3 x 3 x 2 cm upto muscle deep blackening of skin present surrounding wound.
Injuries over Right Hand
1) Chopped incised wound present over dorsal surface of right hand, cutting index middle and ring finger of length 8 cms extending from base of thumb.
2) 2nd incised wound present over thumb on anterior medial aspect upto muscle deep of size 3 x 2 x 2 cms.
3) Incised wound present over dorsum of right hand upto inter digital space between ring and little finger of size 10 x 5 x 3 cms upto bone deep.
Injuries over left hand Split incised wound present over dorsal surface of index finger covering metacarpus-phalanx. Gael joint of size 5 x 3 x 3 cms upto muscle deep.
Abrasion wound over abdomen Imprint type of abrasion present over left lumbar region encircling halfly of length 30cms extending from 20 cm away from mid line of body in front upto 15 cm away from mid line of body from back. Skin over abrasion dark brown colour. Similar type of imprint abrasion present on right lumbar region of length 20 cms extending from 25 cms from mid line in front and 20 cms from mid line in back. Skin over abrasion dark brown colour.
Multiple grazes abrasion present over left shoulder over outer external aspect.
It also found from Column No.18 of the postmortem note that the deceased sustained about seven fractures on different parts of the body including on frontal bone, parietal bone, temporal bone, occipital bone etc.
9 In background of the above mentioned facts and before arriving at a final conclusion of the matter, I would like to deal with the submission made by the learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, as far as examining a case under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. when the accused are already set at liberty by way of granting bail during the pendency of the trial.
9.1 In the case of Puran vs. Rambilas (supra), the Apex Court has considered the decision in the case of Dolat Ram vs. State of Haryana, which is relied upon by the learned Advocate for the accused. The Apex Court relying upon the case of Dolat Ram, observed that the rejection of bail in non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail already granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. It has been further held that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for cancellation of bail, already granted. It has been observed by the Apex Court that generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly are inference or an attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. Relying upon the said judgment, it has been further held by the Apex Court that these circumstances are illustrative and not exhaustive. The grounds for the cancellation of bail would be available where the court considering the case for bail, ignores the material evidence on record and the bail is granted in a heinous crime and if such an application is considered, reasons are necessary for passing the same. In para-10 of the said judgment (Puran vs. Rambilas [supra]) is reproduced as under:
“10. Mr. Lalit next submitted that once bail has been granted it should not be cancelled unless there is evidence that the conditions of bail are being infringed. In support of this submission, he relies upon the authority in the case of Ram v. State of Haryana, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349. In this case it has been held that rejection of bail in a non- bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail already granted have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. It has been held that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail already granted. It has been held that generally speaking the grounds for cancellation of bail broadly are interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. It is, however, to be noted that this Court has clarified that these instances are merely illustrative and not exhaustive. One such ground for cancellation of bail would be where ignoring material and evidence on record a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime of this nature and that too without giving any reasons. Such an order would be against principles of law. Interest of justice would also require that such a perverse order be set aside and bail be cancelled. It must be remembered that such offences are on the rise and have a very serious impact on the Society. Therefore, an arbitrary and wrong exercise of discretion by the trial Court has to be corrected.” [emphasis supplied]
9.2 While considering the decision in the case of Ram Banu Tiwari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, as reported at (2009) 12 SCC 471, the Apex Court relying upon the case Puran vs. Rambilas (supra) and Gurcharan Singh (supra) and in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra), held that the court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. One of the circumstances which are required to be considered at the time of granting bail is the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. The Apex Cort relying on the decision in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu (supra) reiterated the same in para 5 which is reproduced as under:
“21 The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non- application of mind. It is also necessary of the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:
(a) the nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence;
(b) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(c) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.”
9.3 In the case of Manjit Prakash & Ors. vs. Shobha Devi & Ors., as reported at (2009) 13 SCC 785, the Apex Court has, relying upon several judgments, like Puran (supra), Kalyanchandra (supra), Gurucharan Singh (supra), as discussed here-in-above, held that if it is found that court has considered irrelevant material to release a person on bail by the court to grant bail, the same is required to be interfered with.
9.4 Again in the case of Prakash Kadam vs. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta , reported at AIR 2011 SC 1945, the Apex Court has held that only likelihood of misuse of the bail is not a factor for cancellation of bail and if there are very serious allegations against the accused, his bail may be cancelled even if he has not misused the bail granted to him. Relying on the case of Bhagiratsinh S/o Mahipat Singh Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat, reported at AIR 1984 SC 373, which is relied upon by the learned Advocate for the accused, the Apex Court has held in para 16, 17 and 18 in Prakash Kadam held as under:
“16. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellants before us, and it was also contended before the High Court, that the considerations for cancellation of bail is different from the consideration of grant of bail vide Bhagirathsinh s/o Mahipat Singh Jadeja v. State of Gujarat (1984) 1 SCC 284 : (AIR 1984 SC 372) Dolat Ram and others v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 and Ramcharan v. State of M.P. (2004) 13 SCC 617.
17. However, we are of the opinion that that is not an absolute rule, and it will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. In considering whether to cancel the bail the Court has also to consider the gravity and nature of the offence, prima facie case against the accused, the position and standing of the accused, etc. If there are very serious allegations against the accused his bail may be cancelled even if he has not misused the bail granted to him. Moreover, the above principle applies when the same Court which granted bail is approached for cancelling the bail. It will not apply when the order granting bail is appealed against before an appellate/revisional Court.
18. In our opinion, there is no absolute rule that once bail is granted to the accused then it can only be cancelled if there is likelihood of misuse of the bail. That factor, though no doubt important, is not the only factor. There are several other factors also which may be seen while deciding to cancel the bail.”
10 Now, if, we consider the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in all the judgments relied by either party, nowhere the Apex Court has held that the only cases which are mentioned in the case of Manjit Prakash (supra) shall be looked into. All the judgments rendered by the Apex Court were treated its grounds as illustrative and not exhaustive. The judgments also laid down a law that the courts, while considering the bail applications, are required to consider several factors, which are stated here-in- above. The nature of accusation and severity of punishment are the foremost and important aspects when an application for bail is under consideration. The court has to, prima facie, satisfy itself that why the bail is being granted particularly when the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. All the judgments do empower the higher courts to cancel the bail if it is found that the courts below had considered irrelevant material; not dealt with the accusations made against the accused person as well as not recording of a prima facie satisfaction that why the accused is required to be enlarged on bail in a serious offence. In such cases, the higher courts can certainly examine the material collected by the investigating agency and come to a prima facie conclusion about the accusation of the person who has been enlarged on bail.
11 Now, in the background of these judgments, if, the record of the present case is perused, the following aspects are very relevant and material and are required to be considered while considering the case under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C., viz.
i) the complaint was lodged immediately after the incident in which the complainant has described the entire incident and each of the accused persons is attributed with deadly weapons and giving blows indiscriminately to the deceased. He has also stated in the complaint that when he raised shouts, one of his relatives Ravatbhai Vasurbhai had reached at the place of incident after his father was attacked by the accused persons.
ii) the investigating agency recorded the statement of said witness Ravatbhai, who is an eye witness to the incident, has specifically named all the accused persons having deadly weapons in their hands and giving blows indiscriminatorily to the deceased;
iii) another witness Somabhai, who had also reached at the time of incident pursuant to the alarm raised by Ravatbhai, had specifically and in clear terms described the entire incident and the individual role played by each accused persons; and
iv) it has also come on record that the respondent No.1 Madhubhai Bhimabhai Mer was arrested on 26.3.2012 i.e. after five days of the incident and respondents No.2 and 3 i.e. Sarabhai and Panchabhai, were arrested on 24.3.2012 i.e. after two days of the incident;
v) The say of the complainant is, prima facie, supported by the documentary evidence about the attack in which the complainant had also sustained an injury though due to fall from motorcycle.
12 Now, in the aforesaid background of the incident, if the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court is perused, it is apparent that, the Sessions Court has not all considered the aforesaid material aspects while considering the case of the respondents – accused for bail. When the eye witnesses to the incident have specifically attributed the role played by each of the accused persons having deadly weapons in their hands and the accused persons are charged with serious offences under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148 and 149 read with Section 34 of the IPC and prima facie corroborated by postmortem notes, the Sessions Judge ought not to have brushed aside these important aspects and ought to have dealt with the case in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court. In fact, no reasons are assigned by the Sessions Court while considering the case of the present respondents for releasing them on regular bail.
13 The injuries sustained by the deceased, which are extracted in Column No. 17 and 18 of the Postmortem Note, are possible by deadly weapons, alleged to have been used by the accused persons. The Sessions Court was bound to consider the same even at its prima facie conclusion for releasing the accused persons on bail.
14 As far as defence of alibi raised by respondent No.1 Madhubhai Bhimabhai Mer is concerned, the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Naresh Pal Singh (supra) and Mansab Ali (supra) relied by learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar are itself clear that the High Court had wrongly accepted the plea of the accused of the said cases about his alibi and had not considered the nature of offence or any other material and, therefore, the bail was cancelled and the case was remitted to the High Court for taking into consideration all the relevant material for deciding the bail application afresh. Therefore the said decisions would not be of any help to consider the case of the respondent No.1.
15 In the present case, the Sessions Judge has observed in the impugned order that the respondent No.2 – Sarabhai Jivabhai Ranani, being aged 52 years and respondent No. 3- Panchabhai Lakhabhai Chavda, being aged 42 years and, therefore, the arguments advanced on behalf of them by the Advocate are required to be accepted and keeping the same in mind they are required to be released on bail. In my opinion, this type of conclusion of the Sessions court is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in catena of decisions. The Sessions Court has not even considered the possibility of tampering with the evidence as well as the possibility of their availability at the time of trial. Considering the seriousness of offence and having found prima facie material against accused, I am not inclined to accept the alternative prayer to remand the case to the Trial Court for considering it afresh.
16 In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, the Sessions Court has committed a grave error in entertaining the application filed by the respondents under section 439 of the Code in a serious offence where a person was attacked with deadly weapons for some past incident and therefore the bail granted to the accused persons are required to be cancelled. Hence, both the applications, Criminal Misc. Application No. 12924 of 2012 filed by the State as well as the Criminal Misc. Application No. 10805 of 2012 filed by the original complainant are hereby allowed. The Order dated 11.7.2012 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in Criminal Misc. Application No.421 of 2012 releasing the accused persons, namely, Madhubhai Bhimabhai Mer, Sarabhai Jivabhai Ranani and Panchabhai Lakhabhai Chavda, is quashed and set aside and the bail granted to the aforesaid accused persons in connection with the offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Palitana Rural Police Station being CR No. I-14 of 2012 are hereby cancelled and they are directed to surrender to the concerned Jail Authority forthwith. Rule is made absolute in both the petitions.
17. At this stage, the learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar, for the accused persons requested to the Court that the order may kindly be stayed for some period. I am of the opinion that looking to the gravity of the offence and severity of sentence in case of conviction and looking to the material on record, the said request is rejected.
pnnair (A.J. DESAI, J.)