Mahendrasinh @ Lalo Mansinh Rathod vs State Of Gujarat

A.Y. Kogje, J

This application is filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for regular bail in connection with FIR

registered as CRÂI/147/2019 with Mahemdabad Police Station, Kheda for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 325, 323, 120(B) and 114 of the

Indian Penal Code.

Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail

by imposing suitable conditions.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondentÂState has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the

nature and gravity of the offence.

Ms.Dharitri Pancholi, learned advocate for the original complainant states that the present applicant is a main accused, who wanted to help accused

nos.6 & 7 and he hired the services of coÂaccused Aslam and Vipul to carry out the offence. It is the case of the prosecution that vital blows on the

deceased was given by the present applicant by taking sickle from the hands of Vipul. From the chargeÂsheet, it appears that the evidence

substantiate the aforesaid version given by the coÂaccused during the discovery panchanama of the weapon (sickle) which in the opinion of this Court

is a weak piece of evidence to connect the present applicant with crime. The applicant is also related to the deceased, as he is Mama's son of the

deceased. He was also cited as coÂaccused, who has expired during the custody for which the case is pending before the concerned Magistrate

against the police authorities. She also states that the bail granted to coÂaccused Vipul by this Court is under reconsideration, as the State has filed an

application for recall of such order, wherein notice has been issued.

Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for a further reasoned order.

I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered :Â​

I) The FIR is registered on 27.12.2019 for the offence which took place on 27.12.2019.

II) The applicant is in custody since 28.12.2019.

III) Investigation is concluded and chargeÂ​ sheet is filed.

IV) The offence arises out of land dispute between the accused nos. 6 & 7 and deceased. In present case, the deceased had already sold his part of

ancestral land, but was not cooperating in execution of documents by remove his name from the revenue record and hence, this led the accused nos.6

& 7 to hire persons (coÂaccused) to remove the deceased. It is submitted that all the coÂaccused including accused nos.6 & 7, who had motive and

directly benefited were enlarged on regular bail. It is submitted that coÂaccused Vipul, who had discovered the sickle by which the offence was

committed has also been enlarged on bail by this Court. .

V) No antecedents are reported.

VI) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor under the instructions of the Investigating Officer is unable to bring on record any special circumstances

against the applicant.

This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of

Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the First Information Report,

without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the

applicant on regular bail.

Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with CRÂI/147/2019 with

Mahemdabad Police Station, Kheda on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/= (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to

the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he 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 the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;

(e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station on alternate Monday 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 his 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;

The authorities will release the applicant 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 observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court while

enlarging the applicant on bail

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is permitted.