Kalpesh Manilal Dangodara vs State Of Gujarat

Divyesh A. Joshi, J

The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11210060230708/2023 registered with the Varachha Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 324 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the incident has occurred on 13.03.2023 and on the next day i.e. on 14.03.2023, FIR has been lodged and in connection with the said FIR, the applicant has been arrested on 14.03.2023 and since then, he is in judicial custody. It is submitted that the investigation is completed and after submission of the chargesheet, the present application is preferred. It is submitted that in the application filed before the concerned Court by the applicant, the concerned Investigating Officer has filed an affidavit opposing the said application, wherein it is stated that there are total 8 offences registered against the present applicant. Learned advocate, however, forcefully submitted that out of those 8 offences, in 5 offences, the present applicant has been acquitted by the competent criminal court, whereas in connection with three cases, trial is pending before the concerned court. Learned advocate has read the FIR and submitted that the contents of the allegations leveled against the complainant in the FIR are quite different to the facts narrated by the witnesses in their statements, who happens to be the eyewitness and injured witness. Learned advocate submitted that considering the above factual aspects, it is clearly found out that at the place of occurrence at the time of incident, some verbal altercation took place between the present applicant – accused and the deceased as well as the injured witness as the deceased was having grudge against the present applicant – accused and he had gone to the house of the applicant – accused by keeping knife along with him and on reaching at the place of occurrence, the deceased had abused the applicant and tried to inflict the blow upon the applicant and during the scuffle, the wife of the present applicant had intervened and tried to save her husband and in the said incident, the wife of the applicant sustained serious injuries on her fingers and due to said intervention of his wife, the deceased has escaped from the injury but just to save his skin from the clutches of the aggressor, the applicant had acted in a particular manner as a self-defence by snatching knife from the hand of the deceased and inflicted blows, thereafter the injured deceased succumbed to the same and the aforesaid FIR has been lodged, however entire sequence of events clearly goes on to show that the deceased was the aggressor and so-called incident has occurred in self-defence of the present applicant – accused. It is, therefore, urged that considering above factual aspects, the present application may be entertained by imposing suitable conditions.

Learned APP for the respondent-State has opposed the grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that entire sequence of events of incident clearly spelt-out in the body of the complaint and specific role attributed to the applicant is clearly mentioned in the FIR in a very categoric terms. Learned APP submitted that the present applicant is very headstrong person and is habitual offender and in past, there are as many as 8 offences registered against the applicant and out of which, 2 offences are registered under Section 302 of the IPC. It is further submitted that the age of the applicant is also required to be taken into consideration while deciding the present bail application because at the age of 27 years, he has indulged into such serious offences. It is submitted that the defences, which were raised by learned advocate for the applicant can be taken into consideration at the time of trial but at the time of deciding the present bail application, prima facie role and involvement of the present applicant is required to be seen and the documents collected by the concerned IO at the time of submission of the chargesheet clearly goes on to show that the present applicant is directly connected with the commission of crime and in the present incident, one person has lost his life. It is also submitted that the present applicant has actively participated in the crime, which is clearly found out from the papers of the chargesheet. It is, therefore, urged that the present application may not be entertained.

I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers of the investigation and considered the allegations levelled against the applicant and the role played by the applicant.

It is found out from the record that the present application is preferred after submission of the chargesheet. From bare perusal of the complaint, the role of the present applicant is clearly found out that the applicant has actively participated in the commission of crime and he has inflicted blows upon the deceased and because of which, the injured victim sustained injuries and immediately succumbed to the place of occurrence on the spot. The record also clearly goes on to show that total 8 offences have been registered against him including the offence falling under Section 302 of the IPC and thus, this fact clearly shows that the present applicant is history-sheeter and is habitual offender and at the age of 27 years, he has indulged into such serious offences including three offences falling under Section 302 of the IPC, wherein innocent persons have lost their valuable lives. It is found out from the record that the muddamal knife has been recovered at the behest of the present applicant – accused. I have also perused the police papers provided by learned APP during the course of hearing and found the prima facie involvement of the present applicant in the commission of crime.

At this stage, I would like to put reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav Vs. CBI Through its Director, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 70, wherein, the Apex Court has laid down that, while considering an application for regular bail, the Courts shall have to take into consideration, the following aspects,

(a) The nature of accusation and the 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;

The Hon’ble Apex Court, further, observed at Paragraphs-10 and 16 thus;

“10. In our opinion none of the aforesaid decisions can be said to have laid down any absolute and unconditional rule about when bail should be granted by the Court and when it should not. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and it cannot be said there is any absolute rule that because a long period of imprisonment has expired bail must necessarily be granted.

We are of the opinion that while it is true that Article 21 is of great importance because it enshrines the fundamental right to individual liberty, but at the same time a balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of society. No right can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on them. While it is true that one of the considerations in deciding whether to grant bail to an accused or not is whether he has been in jail for a long time, the Court has also to take into consideration other facts and circumstances, such as the interest of the society.”

Over and above that, strong apprehension has been shown by prosecution that if the applicant is released on bail then, there is possibility of tampering with the evidence; fleeing away from the trial and also indulging into such type of offences again. Therefore considering the nature of offence, role attributed to the applicant and played by him, I am of the opinion that the present application deserves to be rejected.

Accordingly, the present application is rejected. Rule is discharged.