AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J. C. Doshi, J
By way of the present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the ‘Act, 1989’), the appellant – original accused has prayed to release him on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.No.11203025230704 of 2023 registered with Junagadh Taluka Police Station, Junagadh.
Learned advocate for the appellant submits that investigation is complete and charge-sheet is filed. It is submitted that if FIR and charge-sheet papers are considered as it is, incident took place in two parts. Firstly about 1.00 pm, some altercation took place between present appellant and deceased, when deceased had passed some unwanted comments on cow and therefore, at that time, the appellant inflicted simple blow by stick upon the deceased and scuffle ended there. It is submitted that incident took place near field of the appellant, whereas, second incident took place at Chowk area of Padariya, where three accused viz. Rakesh, Mayur and Jaimin were sitting. At that time, deceased passed through that area and started speaking filthy for cows which has ignited the three accused persons to beat him to death. It is submitted that there is two incidents, both are separate and different and present appellant has not played any role in committing murder and he has just given blow by stick. Apart from that he has not done anything. The appellant is behind bar since 06.10.2023. In the charge-sheet, 48 witnesses are cited, trial will take long time. Therefore, it is submitted to enlarge the appellant on regular bail on suitable conditions.
Learned advocate for the first informant would submit that submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant can be tested during trial. It is heinous crime of murder. Whether there are two incidents or continuous incident can be decided after recording evidence and therefore, in this circumstances, the appellant may not be granted regular bail, otherwise, he will temper with the evidence and influence over prosecution witnesses, as they are living in same vicinity.
On the other hand, learned APP referring to affidavit filed before the learned Trial Court and report before this Court could not point out that it is continuous incident. It is fairly submitted that this issue can be decided after evidence is recorded. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be believed that there was no continuous incident. Upon such submission, it is submitted that the appellant may not be granted regular bail.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the appellant for the following reasons : -
(i) Investigation is complete and charge-sheet is filed.
(ii) The appellant - accused is behind bar since 06.10.2023.
(iii) Prima facie, it seems that incident took place in two parts. The appellant played role in first part by inflicting injury through stick, which has not caused for death.
(iv) According to charge-sheet papers, both incident took place at different place, where second incident has ended upon death of deceased.
(v) Main role alleged in the charge-sheet to commit murder is upon three other accused viz. Rakesh, Mayur and Jaimin. Even statement of eye-witnesses is stating the same thing.
(vi) Apprehension of learned advocate for first informant about winning over the witnesses can be taken care by imposing suitable conditions and since charge-sheet is filed, it cannot come in the way of personal liberty of accused.
In the result, the present appeal is allowed. The appellant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with FIR registered as C.R.No.11203025230704 of 2023 with Junagadh Taluka Police Station, Junagadh on executing bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and subject to the conditions that the 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] not leave the territory of India without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;
[d] appear before the Investigation Officer concerned, as and when required for investigation purpose and attend Court concerned regularly.
[e] furnish the present address of residence along with the proof to the I.O. concerned and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of Sessions Court concerned;
[f] not enter Junagadh District for one year.
The competent authority 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 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 to the concerned Court to delete, modify 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 appellant on bail.
The appeal succeeds. Direct service is permitted.