Brahman (Joshi) Ambarambhai Dhudabhai vs State Of Gujarat

B.N. Karia, J

The appellant has filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 389 of 2019 before the court of learned Additional District Judge, Banaskatha at Tharad u/s. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requesting to enlarge the appellant on regular bail on account of offence being registered vide I-C.R. No. 17 of 2019 with Mavsari Police Station, Dist-Banaskatha for the offence punishable u/s. 307, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 135 of the G.P. Act and u/s. 3 (1) (R) & 3 (2) (5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short "the Atrocities Act"), wherein the learned Additional District Judge, Banaskatha at Tharad rejected the said application on 25.11.2019.

Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred said appeal u/s. 14A(2) of the Atrocities Act.

Heard learned advocate for the appellant and learned APP for the respondent-State and learned advocate for the respondent No. 2.

Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the present appellant is an innocent person and has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. That, the allegations made against the present appellant is vague and general in nature and no specific role is attributed by the appellant and therefore, this Court may release the appellant on bail. He further submits that appellant is not main accused whereas main accused has been granted bail by this Court on 25.10.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 2093 of 2019 and the matter has been settled between the parties. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellant to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Banaskatha at Tharad and release the present appellant on regular bail.

4 . Learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the dispute is settled between the parties and main accused Kumbhabhai Hajabhai Solanki was released on regular bail by this Court on 25.10.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 2093 of 2019. He further submits that no specific role was attributed by the present appellant as alleged by the prosecution. Respondent No. 2 has no objection if the appellant would be released on bail. Hence, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 has Sushant Kumar barick requested to pass necessary order.

From the other side, learned APP has strongly objected the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the appellant submitting that from the complaint itself role of the present appellant was clear and he has intimated the complainant by using the certain words as disclosed in the complaint as well as the blows were given with the weapon dhoka (stick). That, other witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution. Prima facie, involvement of the present appellant is established by the prosecution from the police papers. That, serious injuries were caused to the injured Ramilaben and injury certificate that has also supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, it was requested by learned APP for the respondent-State to dismiss the present appeal.

Having considered the facts of the case, submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties as well as learned APP for the respondent-State, from the complaint prima facie it appears that certain allegations are made by the complainant against the present appellant, that the present appellant used words insulted, the complainant, thereafter gave one blow with the weapon of dhoka (stick) No other allegations are made against the present appellant by the complainant. It appears from the order passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2093 of 2019, that the co-accused against whom serious allegations were made, was released on bail on 25. 10.2019. That, the dispute is settled between the complainant and co-accused. An order was passed by this Court, wherein it was also observed that an affidavit was filed by the respondent No. 2 stating that the matter is amicably settled between the parties and he has no objection if the applicant would be released on bail in the aforesaid criminal appeal. Injuries caused to Ramilaben was not serious as per the medical certificate. She was discharged from the hospital on 23rd September 2019. That, the appellant is in judicial custody since 18.11.2019. Thus, considering the facts of the case, this Court deems it fit to exercise the discretionary power in favour of the present appellant.

In the result, present Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Banaskatha at Tharad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 389 of 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on regular bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that appellant shall;

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

[d] not leave India without prior permission of the concerned Trial Court;

[e] mark presence before the concerned Police Station between 1st to 10th day of every English calendar month for a period of six months between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;

[f] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;

8 . The authorities will release the appellant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law.

At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.