Ramilaben Wd/O Govindbhai Babubhai Naika vs State Of Gujarat

Ilesh J. Vora, J

This regular bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., in connection with FIR CR. No. Part A 11822019213197 of 2021, registered with Navsari Town Police Station, Dist.: Navsari, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951.

The applicant came to be arrested in the aforesaid offence on 19.11.2021. Chargesheet is filed on 27.12.2021. The regular bail application came to be rejected by the Sessions Court, Navsari vide its order dated 05.09.2022.

Brief facts leading to file the present application are that the incident happened on 18.11.2021, at the place, nearby the resident of the applicant. The deceased Vinod Bajrangi was convicted for the offence of murder and was on parole leave. Deceased was involved in the murder of son of the applicant. The FIR came to be disclosed by the father of the deceased. It is alleged in the FIR that on the day of incident dated 17.11.2021, deceased had come to place of the applicant, where minor kids were playing cricket in the open field adjacent to the house of the applicant and others. Deceased Vinod interfered in the game of cricket and took away cricket bat from one minor Mayank who happened to be a son of principal accused Sanjay. The minor and others complained of about the conduct of the deceased. The accused Sanjay, grandmother accused – Anita and Ranjanben came at the place to convenience the deceased where verbal spat took place amongst them, as a result of which, deceased, pushed away the accused Anita, who fell on the floor. In these circumstances, on making hue and cry by the accused, who were present at the place, the other persons came at the place and deceased was assaulted by accused Sanjay, his mother Anita, Ranjanben and co-accused with cricket bat, stump, cement block and pieces of bricks. Deceased severely injured and he was declared brought dead at the hospital. In such circumstances, 10 persons including the present applicant have been charged with act of unlawful assembly and being a members of unlawful assembly, they executed the murder of the deceased, causing fetal injuries and the motive behind the murder was that earlier the deceased was involved in the murder case where he killed the son of the applicant herein.

This Court has heard leaned counsel Mr. M.K. Paneri, learned counsel for and on behalf of the applicant, and Mr. Manan Mehta, for the respondent State.

Learned counsel Mr. Paneri vehemently submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR and chargesheet case papers, it is evident that the present case is not of any per-medicated planning to kill the deceased, however, the present case is a result of grave and sudden provocation falling under the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is in this context, learned counsel submitted that the applicant herein falsely arraigned in the alleged offence and as such she having no any motive to participate in the alleged murder of the deceased. He urged that the witnesses examined by the investigation during the course of investigation, have categorically stated that the fetal blows were being inflicted by accused no. 3 Sanjaybhai who had caused injuries on the head by cricket bat and stump and no other accused have given any blow on vital part of the deceased. Thus, therefore, he submitted that no offence under Section 302 can be made out against the present applicant herein. He further submitted that at relevant time, deceased came at the scene of offence and had a scuffle with accused no. 2 Anitaben who has sustained injuries over her right elbow on account of felling down on the floor alleged to have been caused by the deceased. He further submitted that the applicant is a lady accused and those accused having similar kind of role, they have been granted bail either by Sessions Court or by this Court.

In the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel Mr. Paneri submitted that the applicant is permanent resident of the city Navsari and is readily available at the time of trial and trial is not likely to conclude within reasonable time and therefore. keeping behind the bar applicant for indefinite period, would certainly violate the fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Opposing the bail application, learned APP for the respondent State, it was contended that there is a reasonable ground to believe that the applicant is involved in the alleged offence. The applicant having a motive behind the crime, as her son was killed by the deceased and therefore, considering the role attributable in the alleged offence, no case is made out for exercising discretion in her favour.

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that similarly situated person namely Ranjaben Naika has been enlarged on bail by this Court. In such circumstance, considering the role attributed to the present applicant and applying the principle of parity, without commenting on merits of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.

Hence, the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR CR. No. Part A 11822019213197 of 2021, registered with Navsari Town Police Station, Dist.: Navsari, on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousands only), with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and subject to the conditions that she shall;

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

[b] not act in a manner injuries 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 Sessions Judge concerned;

[e] furnish latest 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;

The authorities shall release the applicant if she is not required in connection with the any other offence. If breach of any above condition is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned shall take appropriate action or issue warrant against the applicant. The bail bond to be executed before the learned trial Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the sessions judge concerned to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law. Nothing stated hereinabove, shall tantamount to the expression of any opinion on the merits of this case. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service permitted.