Ujjavalpal Amrendrapal Pal vs State Of Gujarat

Divyesh A. Joshi, J

Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

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.11993006230521 of 2023 registered with ‘A’ Division Police Station, Gandhidham, Kutch (East) for the offence punishable under Sections-392, 397, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code; under Section-135 of the Gujarat Police Act and under Section-25(1-b)(a) of the Arms Act.

Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the present application is preferred after submission of charge-sheet. Learned advocate for the applicant has also submitted that the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed. Learned advocate submitted that the FIR is filed against the unknown persons and thereafter, during the investigation, the name and specific role of present applicant-accused has come on surface and on the basis of the statement made by the co-accused before the Investigating Officer, the present applicant-accused is arrested. As per the case of the prosecution, the present applicant-accused has carried out the reiki of the area and he is the main perpetrator of the crime and he has designed the plan as well as he has informed the other accused person and organized the plan of loot. Learned advocate further submits that admittedly, the present applicant-accused has not actively participated in the commission of crime and he was not found at the place of occurrence and therefore, he has not been identified by the complainant/ witnesses during the course of TI parade. However, Rs.5,00,000/- was recovered from custody of the present applicant-accused during the course of investigation. Except that no any other specific role is attributed to the present applicant-accused. The other co-accused, whose role is laser and/or graver than to the present applicant-accused have been enlarged on bail, therefore, considering the principle of “law of parity”, the applicant-accused, may be considered. Under the circumstances, learned advocate for the applicant prays that considering the role attributed to the applicant-accused, the applicant may be enlarged on bail on any suitable terms and conditions.

The learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Learned APP further submits that the present applicant-accused is the main perpetrator of the crime, he has carried out the reiki and informed the other accused persons. Learned APP further submits that the applicant-accused has obtained the revolver with the help of other accused persons and he is actively participated in the crime in question. Learned APP further submits that during the course of investigation, Rs.5,00,000/- was recovered from the custody of the present applicant-accused and there are antecedents against the present applicant-accused. Learned APP has submitted that considering the role attributed to the applicant-accused, this is a fit case wherein discretionary power of this Court is not required to be exercised in favour of the applicant-accused.

The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

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. This Court has also considered the following aspects;

a) That the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed;

b) That the FIR is filed against the unknown persons and thereafter, during the investigation, the name of the persons have been established and on the strength of the statement made by the co-accused before the Investigating Officer, the present applicant-accused is arrested.

c) The other co-accused, whose role is laser and/or graver than the present applicant-accused have been enlarged on bail.

This Court has also 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 FIR, 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 and the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11993006230521 of 2023 registered with ‘A’ Division Police Station, Gandhidham, Kutch (East), on executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen 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 injuries 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 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.

Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.