NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15151/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/11/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
CHARGESHEET) NO. 15151 of 2023
================================================================
PRAGNESH HARSHADBHAI PATEL @ P.G. @ PRAGNESH GOTA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. I.H.SYED, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MS FORUM J SHAH(10810) for
the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS ZEAL H SHAH(9811) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DARSHANKUMAR P VEGAD(11612) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. MITESH AMIN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. L.B.DABHI, APP
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 01/11/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. The Applicant [Original Accused No.2] has filed this Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enlarging him on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11191069230241/2023 registered with S.G. Highway 02 Traffic Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Sections 308, 279, 337, 338, 304, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 177, 184 and 134(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant, learned APP for the Respondent - State and also the learned Advocate appearing for the Original Complainant.
3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. I.H.Syed appearing with learned Advocate Ms. Zeal H. Shah for the Applicant has submitted that; in the present case, the Page 1 of 7 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 01 20:47:41 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15151/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/11/2023 undefined investigation is over and charge sheet is filed. It is submitted that on the fateful day, the son of the present Applicant was driving a vehicle in question, which had met with an accident, wherein nine innocent lives were lost. The only role attributed to the present Applicant for commission of the offence in question is that he arrived at the scene of offence after the accident had taken place and had threatened the witnesses, who had gathered at the scene of occurrence. Except this, no overt act has been attributed to the Applicant in commission of the offence in question. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Syed submitted that; when the present Applicant arrived at the scene of offence, the persons who had gathered at the place, were manhandling his son, who had committed the accident, and therefore, the Applicant had taken his son to the hospital. While he was on the way to the hospital with his son, he had informed the police by making a call on 100 Number, and thereafter, the Police had arrived at the scene of offence and the investigation was carried on further.
3.1 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Syed has further submitted that so far as the other antecedents registered against the present Applicant are concerned, in all those offences, the Applicant has been ordered to be enlarged on bail by the competent court. He therefore submitted that, looking to the role attributed to the present Applicant in commission of the offence, the Application may be allowed and the Applicant may be granted bail subject to suitable conditions. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mitesh Amin has vehemently opposed the present application for grant of regular bail. He submitted that after the present Applicant arrived at the scene of offence, he had asked his wife to bring a revolver with an intention to threaten the witnesses who had gathered at the scene of offence. He submitted that the conduct of the present Applicant, after the present offence was committed, is also required to be taken Page 2 of 7 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 01 20:47:41 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15151/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/11/2023 undefined into consideration.
4.1 Learned Public Prosecutor has further submitted that the present Applicant had filed an Application for Temporary Bail on the ground that he was suffering from cancer and wanted to go for his own treatment to the place outside the State of Gujarat. However, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had asked the present Applicant to undergo some medical examination for the said purpose. However, the Applicant did not remain present for any such test. The Medical case papers of the present Applicant would also reveal that the Applicant was not suffering from any such ailment and he was hale and hearty. Thus, the Applicant had sought Temporary Bail on the false pretext. It is also submitted that the Applicant has as many as 10 antecedents and, if the present Applicant is ordered to be enlarged on bail, there are all chances that he would create hindrance in the course of trial. He therefore submitted that looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the Applicant and the Application may be dismissed.
5. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Original Complainant has submitted that he is adopting the submissions advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and submitted that the Application may be dismissed.
6. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the record.
7. From the facts emerging from record, it appears that on the fateful day, the son of the present Applicant, who is also a coaccused in the present case, was driving a Jaguar Car bearing Registration No. GJ-01-WK-0093. The said Car was driven by the son of the Applicant in absolutely rash and negligent manner and, when it reached the scene of occurrence, had rammed into the mob, which had gathered on the place to see an accident which had occured Page 3 of 7 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 01 20:47:41 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15151/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/11/2023 undefined prior to the present incident. As a result of the present accident, nine innocent lives were lost.
7.1 It is an admitted position that the present Applicant was not present in the car when the incident had taken place. The Applicant had subsequently reached the scene of offence and, when he reached at the palce, his son i.e. the coaccused, was being beaten by the people who had gathered at the place of incident due to the accident. As per the case of the prosecution, after reaching the place, the present Applicant had asked his wife to bring the revolver with an intention to threaten the witnesses who had gathered at that place. For this purpose, the prosecution seeks to rely upon the statement of one Pranshu Jitendrabhai Ruprel dated 25.7.2023. The said witness in his statement has stated that the present Applicant, looking at the mob that had gathered at the place, asked his wife to bring the revolver from the car with an intention to threaten the mob and had also abused the people who had gathered there and had threatened them. The record indicates that prior to the statement of this witness dated 25.7.2023, his statement was already recorded on 20.7.2023 and in the said statement he does not state anything with regard to the Applicant having asked his wife to bring revolver from the car. This fact comes for the first time on record in his statement dated 25.7.2023. Even if the said fact is accepted to be true, the only role attributed to the present Applicant in commission of the offence is that he had threatened the people who had gathered at the place of occurrence and were beating his son i.e. the coaccused. Except this, no overt act has been attributed to the Applicant in the commission of the offence in question.
7.2 The record indicates that after the present Applicant reached the place of incident, he had taken his son to SIMS Hospital, Ahmedabad and, while on the way to the said Hospital, the present Applicant appears to have made a phone call to the Police at 100 Number at 1:00 hours and had intimated to the police Page 4 of 7 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 01 20:47:41 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15151/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/11/2023 undefined authorities about the incident which had taken place.
7.3 So far as the other antecedents registered against the present Applicant are concerned, in those offences, the Applicant is ordered to be enlarged on bail. The investigation is over and charge sheet is filed.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v/s Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. [2022 Live Law (SC) 577] has observed that right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. Considering this aspect, the Application deserves consideration. This court has also considered the following aspects:
(a) As per catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, there are mainly 3 factors which are required to be considered by this court i.e. prima facie case, availability of Applicant accused at the time of trial and tampering and hampering with the witnesses by the accused.
(b) That the learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant Accused is not likely to flee away.
(c) That the Applicant is in custody since 20.7.2023.
(d) The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40.
9. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the record produced in this case as well as taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations levelled against the Applicant and also the availability of the Applicant at the time of Trial etc. and the role attributed to the present Applicant accused, the present Application deserves to be allowed Page 5 of 7 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 01 20:47:41 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15151/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/11/2023 undefined and accordingly stands allowed. This Court has also gone through the FIR and police papers and also the earlier order passed by the learned Sessions Court where the learned Sessions Judge has disallowed the bail Application. The Applicant Accused is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions that he shall:
(a) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence.
(b) maintain law and order and not to indulge in any criminal activities.
(c) furnish the documentary proof of complete, correct and present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and to the Trial Court at the time of executing the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of the trial Court.
(d) provide contact numbers as well as the contact numbers of the sureties before the Trial Court. In case of change in such numbers inform in writing immediately to the trial Court.
(e) file an affidavit stating his immovable properties whether self acquired or ancestral with description, location and present value of such properties before the Trial Court, if any.
(f) not leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court
(g) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week. If the Applicant does not possess passport, shall file an Affidavit to that effect.
(h) not enter the City of Ahmedabad except for attending the trial till the conclusion of the Trial.
10. Bail bond to be executed before the Trial Court having jurisdiction to try Page 6 of 7 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 01 20:47:41 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15151/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/11/2023 undefined the case. It would be open for the Trial Court concerned to give time to furnish the solvency certificate if prayed for.
11. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Trial Court concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action according to law. The Authorities will release the Applicant forthwith only if the Applicant is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being.
12. At the trial, the concerned trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
13. Rule is made absolute. Direct service permitted.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J) J.N.W / 1 Page 7 of 7 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 01 20:47:41 IST 2023