[1] The applicant -
original informant has moved this application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents No.2 to 4 by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Ahmedabad (Rural), viramgam vide order dated 30.09.2011 in connection with the C.R.No.I-43/2011 registered with Detroj Police Station for the offences under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504, 506(2) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
[2] Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the respondents No.2 to 4 are involved in commission of serious offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He has further submitted that as a matter of fact, the respondents No.2 to 4 had formed unlawful assembly with other accused with common object and intention to do away victim Kakubha Umedsingh. He has, therefore, submitted that the learned Judge was not justified in releasing the respondents No.2 to 4 on bail. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that the learned Judge has exercised discretionary power and granted bail to the respondents No.2 to 4 even before filing the charge-sheet. He would also submit that looking to the seriousness of the offence, the respondents No.2 to 4 were not entitled to be released on bail till completion of investigation by the police. He has, therefore, submitted that looking to the seriousness of the offence, this Court may exercise the power under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and cancel the bail granted to the respondents No.2 to 4.
[3] I have heard Mr.R.
C. Kodekar, learned APP for the respondent No.1 - State. From the order passed by the learned Judge, it appears that the allegation against the respondents No.2 to 4 was of holding and using the stick in the commission of the offence. The learned Judge in his order has recorded that the respondents No.2 to 4 are not found to be involved in causing any serious injury to anybody. Therefore, the learned Judge has exercised his discretion vested with him while granting the bail to the respondents No.2 to 4 considering the role played by the respondents No.2 to 4. I do not find that the discretion exercised by the learned Judge was in any way erroneous. In fact the learned Judge has exercised his discretion on the basis of the material available on record and, therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Judge has committed any illegality in passing the order releasing the respondents No. 2 to 4 on bail.
[4] In above view of the matter, I do not think it fit to exercise power under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The application is devoid of merits and accordingly, it is rejected.
[ C. L. SONI, J. ] vijay Top