Niteshsing Amlasing Ramprashadsing Rajput vs State Of Gujarat

Vipul M. Pancholi, J

This successive bail application is filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) for enlarging the applicant on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.No.I-52 of 2017 registered with Valiya Police Station, District Bharuch for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 397, 365, 224, 225, 332, 353, 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 25(1)(a-a) of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

Heard learned advocate Mr. P. P. Majmudar for the applicant and learned APP Mr. H. K. Patel for the respondent – State.

Learned advocate for the applicant mainly submitted that applicant is in jail since 10.11.2017 and there is no progress in the trial and therefore on the ground of delay in proceeding with the trial, this Court may consider the case of the applicant. It is submitted that on 06.02.2020, this Court directed the concerned trial Court to expedite the trial, however, till today, there is no progress in the trial and therefore this application be considered.

Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar submitted the case of the applicant on merits and submitted that applicant is not named in the FIR and even as per the case of the prosecution, the allegation against the applicant is that the other two co-accused fled away from the Police Japta with the help of the present applicant and other co-accused. It is submitted that the pistol is not recovered from the applicant and therefore Section 25(1)(aa) of the Arms Act is not applicable. It is further submitted that for the other alleged offences, maximum punishment prescribed is of 10 years and therefore the applicant be enlarged on bail.

On the other hand, learned APP has opposed this application and submitted that present applicant is brother of main accused viz. Santoshsing Amlasing. It is submitted that said Santoshsing Amlasing and another co-accused Brijbhusan @ Butal Mithiladhish Pande were arrested in connection with the offence registered at Madhya Pradesh and they were in Indore Jail. Both the aforesaid accused were also arrested in connection with the FIR lodged before the concerned Police Station in Gujarat. The criminal case was also pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Valiya. On 11.07.2017, both the aforesaid accused were required to be produced before the said Court and therefore a conspiracy was hatched by the applicant in connivance with the other co-accused and when the aforesaid two accused were travelling in the train from Indore with Police Personnel, as per the conspiracy, the present applicant managed to provide a car and also provided pistol and cartridges to the other co-accused. The present applicant was also travelling in the said train and with the help of the present applicant and other co-accused, the main two other co-accused who were brought from Indore Jail, fled away from the police japta. Learned APP, therefore, urged that serious allegations are levelled against the applicant and therefore this Court has rightly not exercised discretion in favour of the applicant. It is further submitted that this is successive bail application filed by the applicant and applicant has failed to point out any change of circumstances. Learned APP, at this stage, submitted that on one hand, applicant is trying to delay the trial by submitting application before the Trial Court and on the other hand, present application has been filed on the ground of delay in proceeding with the trial and therefore this application may not be entertained. Learned APP has also shown apprehension that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not be available at the time of trial and he will tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Learned APP further submitted that two FIRs have been lodged against the applicant; one at Makarpura, Vadodara and another in the State of Telangana. Thus, looking to the antecedents of the applicant also, this Court may not exercise discretion in his favour.

This Court has considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates appearing for the parties. This Court has also perused the material placed on record and also the investigation papers. It is pertinent to note that this is the successive bail application filed by the applicant. This Court has already given direction to expedite the trial, however, as observed by the Trial Court, some of the accused are also accused in connection with the FIR registered against them in another State and therefore trial is not proceeded further. It is also revealed from the record that the present applicant and others submitted an application under Section 216 of the Code for alteration of charge. The said application has been rejected by the Trial Court on 23.03.2022. The applicant himself has placed on record the said order at page 48 of the compilation. The applicant has failed to point out any change of circumstances. Thus, the so-called delay in proceeding with the trial cannot be attributed to the prosecution or the Court and for the said delay the applicant and other co-accused are responsible. Thus, the applicant cannot take advantage of the same.

Further, serious allegations are levelled against the applicant to the effect that with the help of the applicant and another co-accused, the other main accused viz. Brijbhusan @ Butal Mithiladhish Pande fled away from the police japta and in the said offence the applicant has played vital role. There is sufficient material in the papers of charge-sheet against the applicant. It is also required to be noted that as per the submissions canvassed by learned APP, two other FIRs have been registered against the applicant; one at Makarpura, Vadodara and another in the State of Telangana. Thus, looking to the antecedents of the applicant also, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in his favour.

Further, learned APP has also shown apprehension that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not be available at the time of trial and he will tamper with the prosecution witnesses. It is also pointed out that other 11 accused are still absconding.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant in the present successive bail application. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Rule discharged.