Sujit Devisingh Pardesi vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 15390 Guj

     R/CR.MA/16819/2020                             ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 16819 of 2020

================================================================
                          SUJIT DEVISINGH PARDESI
                                   Versus
                             STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR AABAD PONDA, SENIOR ADVOCATE assisted by M/S.DARSHAN M
VARANDANI and HARESH H KANTHECHA for the Applicant
MR MITESH AMIN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR assisted by MR HK PATEL, APP
for Respondent
MR K S CHANDRANI for the Original Complainant
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

                              Date : 01/10/2021

                                ORAL ORDER

1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection

with I-CR No.3 of 2019 registered with Gandhidham Railway Police

Station, Kutch for the offence under Sections 302, 120B and 34 of

the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1)(b)(a) and 27 of the Arms

Act.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the

applicant submitted that that considering the nature of the offence,

the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable

conditions. It is submitted that the applicant is dragged into the

offence only on account of his proximity with one Manisha

Goswami, who is named as one of the main accused in the crime.

The applicant is also dragged into the offence only because of his

R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021

some acquaintance with main accused Chabildas Patel. It is

submitted that mere proximity or acquaintance in itself cannot be

the ground of implicating the applicant in such a serious offence,

which is a political murder.

2.1 It is submitted that the prosecution, from the inception,

has proceeded with closed mind and in predetermined matter.

When the alleged incident of shootout in the train took place, there

were two persons in the same compartment who could have been

important eyewitnesses, but the prosecution thought it fit to

convert this offence only with circumstantial evidence. While

submitting so, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant referred

to several judgments of the Apex Court to contend that it is the

responsibility of the prosecution to establish chain of evidence so

complete so as to arrive at an indefeasible conclusion of guilt and

not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with

innocence of the accused. Secondly, it is submitted that the

conclusion must exclude every possibility hypothesis accepting one

to be proved. With this principle, the evidence gathered by the

Investigating Agency in this case lacks on both the principles and

therefore, benefit should definitely go to the applicant.

2.2 It is submitted that entire chronology if to be seen

closely then there are two parts of incident, first part being

political rivalry between accused Chabildas Patel and deceased

Jayantibhai Bhanushali, which had resulted into mudslinging

R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021

against each other and Chabildas Patel successfully implicating

deceased Jayantibhai Bhanushali in serious offence like rape with

aid of co-accused Manisha Goswami. Deceased Jayantibhai

Bhanushali also initiated proceedings for registration of false FIR

of serious nature against him which involved co-accused Manisha

Goswami, leading to her arrest and ultimately these cross cases

came to en end by compromise between both the sides, resulting

into quashing petition bringing an end to prosecution on the basis

of compromise. It is submitted that the proximity of the applicant

with Manisha Goswami and Chabildas Patel was only to the extent

of settling these matters and thereafter, the applicant had no

business or connection with co-accused persons. The next stage of

the offence is with regard to murder and as is the case of the

prosecution, triggering point for initiating conspiracy was when an

FIR came to be registered at Dwarka at New Delhi, wherein

allegedly false allegations of rape were foisted against accused

Chabildas Patel and Chabildas Patel, believing that the person

behind such registration of case at Dwarka would be his political

rival, viz. deceased Jayantibhai Bhanushali, hatched conspiracy for

contract killing. However, there is nothing with the prosecution to

indicate that in that second stage, the applicant was in any way

involved.

2.3 It is submitted that the only circumstance against the

applicant cited by the prosecution in evidence is couple of air

R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021

tickets to Delhi, couple of air tickets for travel to and from Ranchi

and Ahmedabad and couple of photographs showing the applicant

along with co-accused persons near a temple. This in itself cannot

be treated to be an evidence even at the prima facie stage. The

theory of the prosecution that the applicant is involved in this

conspiracy on the basis of sharp shooter belonging to the native of

the applicant is also not an evidence sufficient to draw that the

applicant has played any role in the offence.

2.4 It is submitted that this Court has released several co-

accused who have also played role similar to what is sought to be

alleged against the applicant. It is submitted that those co-

accused, who had provided shelter for the accused-sharp shooters

to reside, who provided them with the vehicle to travel and to do

racy, have been enlarged by the Court, whereas the applicant is not

shown to have played any direct role except for being with Manisha

Goswami and meeting other co-accused persons.

2.5 Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant has tried to

elaborately explain the reason for travelling with Manisha Goswami

to Delhi and with other co-accused to Ranchi, stating that the

purpose of travel was only to settle the issues between Chabildas

Patel and deceased Jayantibhai Bhanushali, insofar as their

involvement in offence of rape registered by various girls

purportedly at the behest of Manisha Goswami.

       R/CR.MA/16819/2020                            ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021



2.6              It is submitted that the applicant, had, in fact, no

reason to do away with deceased Jayantibhai Bhanushali as the

dispute between accused Chabildas Patel and deceased Jayantibhai

Bhanushali, insofar as they being respectively implicated in offence

under Section 376 had turned out to become a milking cow for the

applicant. Therefore, no motive can be attributed to the applicant

for doing away with a person from whom the applicant was

receiving money along with Manisha Goswami in trying to resolve

and settling the complaints for rape by various girls against each

other.

2.7 Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submitted

that there are two individuals, viz. Ajitnath Kamble and Sachin

Adgade, who were also having circumstance identical to the

applicant, but still the prosecution thought it fit to treat the

applicant as accused, but treated the aforesaid two persons as

witnesses.

2.8 It is submitted that the investigating agency is citing

the fact of the applicant being absconded for a long period as a

circumstance. But, according to learned Advocate for the

applicant, such absconding of the applicant in itself cannot be

treated to be a circumstance sufficient to implicate the applicant in

a serious offence.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the

R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021

respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the

nature and gravity of the offence. Learned Public Prosecutor at the

outset submitted that this Court in the matter of another accused,

viz. Jayantilal Thakkar, who also is a co-conspirator, having similar

evidence against him as the present applicant, denied bail to him

with a reasoned order and the said accused had filed Special Leave

to Appeal (Criminal) No.3144 of 2021 before the Apex Court and

the Apex Court had dismissed the said SLP by order dated

27.04.2021, not interfering with the impugned order of this Court.

3.1 It is submitted that the applicant was in the thick of

conspiracy and there are enough circumstances to indicate his

involvement in such conspiracy. The applicant has been named

from the initial stage, i.e. registration of the FIR and there are

evidenced recorded of the witnesses. It is submitted that in the

form of evidence about proximity with Manisha Goswami and co-

accused Jayantilal Thakkar, there are evidences to indicate the

applicant having visited jail where Manisha Goswami was lodged

along with accused Chabil Patel and Jayantilal Thakkar. There is

also evidence of the applicant being part of the group which had

met at Mumbai in the office owned by the co-accused and

panchnama of CCTV footage would indicate presence of the

applicant in that meeting. The meeting was of priximate period

and would make out incident as planned.

3.2              It is submitted that the case of the applicant cannot be






       R/CR.MA/16819/2020                               ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021

considered on the ground of parity as the orders which are passed

granting bail to the co-accused persons, the role of those co-

accused persons was restricted to providing for logistics and

perhaps without the knowledge of ultimate conspiracy.

3.3 It is submitted that the prosecution also relies upon the

photographs which are available on record, which show the

applicant in presence of not only main accused Chabildas Patel but

also sharp shooters. This in itself is an evidence sufficient to

implicate the applicant.

3.4 It is also submitted that statements of witnesses, viz.

Ajitnath Kamble and Sachin Adagade have been recorded under

Section 164 and they are supporting the case of the case of the

prosecution in entirety.

3.5 It is submitted that the role of the applicant can also be

ascertained on the basis of CDR, which would indicate that the

applicant was in contact on mobile phone with the co-accused

persons.

4. In rejoinder, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant

strongly refuted existence of CDR of the applicant with other co-

accused persons, especially with the persons who allegedly

committed the offence.

5.               Learned   Advocate     Mr.Chandrani     for     the     original







       R/CR.MA/16819/2020                             ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021

complainant, while adopting the arguments made by learned Public

Prosecutor, submitted that the applicant is nothing short of a

gangster, who perennially indulged into the offence like extortion

money, etc. It is submitted that there are several witnesses who

have stated in their statements that the applicant was found

continuously in company of the co-accused. It is submitted that

there is also an evidence to suggest the role of the applicant in

locating root for escaping after commission of offence. He was

seen with co-accused Manisha Goswami in Bhuj from 3rd January to

5th January, which is evident from statements of witnesses as well

as statement of one taxi driver.

5.1 It is submitted that the applicant has association with

famous gangs which are operating in Mumbai and Pune.

5.2 It is lastly submitted that considering the fact that co-

accused is a political person, as directed by the Supreme Court, to

conduct appeals of political persons, especially MPs and MLAs on

daily basis, the trial of the applicant will not be delayed any further.

6. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and

having perused documents on record, it appears that the offecne is

clearly political murder, where the motive attributed by the

prosecution is that the deceased Jayantibhai Bhanushali was a

leader of Kachchh District BJP in the year 1988. Accused

Jayantibhai Thakkar was active in the politics of Kachchh District in

R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021

Congress Party since 1995, who left the Congress party and joined

BJP in the year 1998. Hence the relations between deceased

Jayantibhai Bhanushali and Jayantibhai Thakkar were good as both

of them were doing political work in the same District and Taluka.

Accused Jayantibhai Thakkar gained trust of deceased Jayantibhai

Bhaunshali due to the service which he rendered during the

earthquake which affected Kachchh in the year 2001. In the year

2007, accused Jayantibhai Thakkar and deceased Jayantibhai

Bhaunushali have demanded for the ticket in the election of

Lagislative Assembly. As the ticket was issued to deceased

Jayantibhai Bhanushali, accused Jayantibhai Thakkar propagated

for Jayantibhai Bhanushali. Jayantibhai Bhanushali won that

election. Due to victory on the seat of Legislative Assembly of

Abdasa-Kachchh constituency, the relations between both of them

became more homely and strong. In the Legislative Assembly

Election in the year 2012, deceased Jayanti Bhanushali lost election

against accused Chabildas Patel, who was from the Congress party,

but in the year 2014, accused Chabildas Patel resigned from

Congress party and joined BJP and in the by-election of the year

2014, as accused Chabildas Patel got the ticket from BJP,

Jayantibhai Thakker had worked for accused Chabildas Patel.

Chhabilbhai Patel lost in this election, hence Jayantibhai Thakkar

reported the Party in his letter pad on 10.06.2014 that deceased

Jayantibhai Bhanushali has done activity against the party. Due to

that reason, Jayantibhai Bhaunshali was displeased with

R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021

Jayantibhai Thakkar. In the year 2017, Jayantibhai Bhaushali

demanded ticket, but Chhabildas Patel was given ticket. This time

also, Jayantibhai Thakkar worked for Chhabildas Patel. But

Chabildas Patel lost once again. Chabildas Patel thought that he

got defeated because deceased Jayantibhai Bhanushali has done

the activities against the party. Chabildas Patel thought that his

political career has been destroyed by Jayantibhai Bhaunshali,

hence he had made-up his mind to end the political carrier of

Jayantibhai Bhanushali and was waiting for an opportunity in which

there was the consent of Jayantibhai Thakkar also.

7. As per the prosecution, the case against the applicant is

that Jayantibhai Thakkar, residing at- Bhuj who was the friend of

Chhabilbhai Patel and Jayantibhai Bhaunushali, was not in favor of

this compromise. According to him, if this compromise would take

place than he could not get the chance to politically defame

Jayantibhai Bhanushali. Hence due to this reason he did not let

this compromise take place. Jayantibhai Thakkar, as a friend of

Jayantibhai Bhanushali persuaded that Manisha Goswami will not

create further trouble if she remains in a jail and considering it,

Jayantibhai Bhanushali filed other complaints also against Manisha

Goswami. Manisha Goswami was arrested for the offence being I-

CR.No.97 of 2018 registered at Naroda Police Station under

Sections 328, 384 etc. of the Indian Penal Code on 14.06.2018.

Manisha Goswami was in Judicial Custody in Sabarmati Jail from

R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021

14.06.2018 to 03.08.2018. When Manisha Goswami was in jail,

Chabildas Patel and Sujit Pardeshi alias Bhau, the other friend of

Manisha Goswami and resident of Keshavnagar, Mundhva, Pune,

Maharashtra went to meet Manisha Goswami in jail and assured

Manisha Goswami of complete help. Chhabil Patel, Sujit Pardeshi @

Bhau and Jayantibhai Thakkar made attempts to take out Manisha

from the cases which were filed against her by Jayantibhai

Bhanushali. As per their guidelines, a lady namely Nidhi Barvaliya

filed a complaint of illegal acts against Jayantibhai Bhanushali in

Sarthana Police Station-Surat City, on 10.07.2018. Deceased

Jayantibhai Bhanushali came under pressure due to this application

filed in Sarthana Police Station, Surat. Chhabildas Patel,

Jayantibhai Thakkar and others made great efforts to defame

Jayantibhai Bhanushali in news media. Jayantibhai Bhanushali

again initiated attempts for settlement. Leaders of Bhanushali

community Manji Bhanushali, Bhimji Vador and Chhabil Patel, Sujit

Bhau and Jayanti Thakkar for Manisha Goswami participated in the

settlement. According to which, Chhabil Patel raised the demand

that all the cases against Manisha Goswami should be withdrawn

and Jayanti Bhanushali should leave the politics and the same was

supported by Jayanti Thakkar also. But Jayantibhai Bhaunshali did

not accept it. Hence, finally on the basis of application of Surat, the

complaint was lodged against Jayanti Bhanushali vide I-CR no. 247

of 2018 at Sarthana Police Station under Sections 376(2) N,

294(KH), 506(2), 420, 342, 465, 471, 354, 354(A), 354(B) and 365

R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021

of the Indian Penal Code. At this point of time, deceased Jayanti

Bhanushali was caught in embarrassing situation and hence, he

struck compromise. Due to this, Jayantibhai Bhanushali relieved

from the above case on 07-08-2018 and Manisha Goswami was also

released from the Jail on 03-08-2018. Chhabil Patel and Jayanti

Thakkar were still not in the favour of this compromise until Jayanti

Bhanushali leaves the politics.

8. It is found during investigation that present applicant -

accused Sujit Pardesi @ Bhau had been remaining present for the

accused Manisha Goswami in the meetings over the disputes

regarding money transactions between the accused Manisha

Goswami and deceased Jayanti Bhanushali in April-2018. Manisha

Goswami was in the Sabarmati Jain in the year - 2018 for the

offence of blackmailing / ransom with the complainant. To get

accused Manisha Goswami released from the jail, the present

accused in collusion with main accused of this offence Chhabilbhai

Patel and accused Jayanti Thakkar, identified himself in the

Sabarmati Jail as the husband of accused Manisha Goswami and

planned a conspiracy to register the complaint of rape against Late

Jayantibhai Bhanushali at other place. The present accused, in

collusion with main accused of this offence Chhabil Patel and

Manisha Goswami, with an intention to finish the political career of

Late Jayantibhai Bhanushali and to defame him in the society and

to compel him to make settlement with accused Manisha Goswami,

R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021

lodged complaint of rape against late Jayantibhai Bhanushali in

Surat Sarthana Police Station. It is found during investigation that

the present applicant - accused has made utmost efforts to get

accused Manisha released from Jail by coercing the complainant to

make settlement. The FIR of rape has been filed against the main

accused of this offence - Chhabilbhai Patel in the Delhi Dwarka

North Police Station on 16.10.2018. Assuming the role of

Jayantibhai Bhanushali against the said FIR, main accused of this

offence - Chhabil Patel, Manisha Goswami, Jayanti Thakkar and the

present applicant accused decided to kill Jayantibhai Bhanushali

and planned to hatch the conspiracy of this offence between

20.10.2018 and 30.10.2018. It was decided to kill late Jayantibhai

Bhanushali through hired shooters and accordingly, the said

accused Manisha Goswami assigned the said work to find hired

outsider shooter to the present accused Sujit Pardeshi. Present

accused had handed over the said work to his known and

subordinate shooter Vishal Kamble and for the same, the present

applicant accused called Nikhil Thorat and Vishal Kamble at Bhuj.

Accordingly, the accused Manisha Gajjugiri Goswami, Nikhil Thorat

and Vishal Nagnath Kamble came to Bhuj together from Vapi on

23/10/2018 in Kutch Express Train No.22955, where meeting was

held between all of them. Thus, strong evidences are found

implicating the applicant accused in this offence since beginning of

the conspiracy of murder. In connection with the murder of Late

Jayantibhai Bhanushali, the present applicant accused had held the

R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021

meeting on 12/11/2018 of his subordinate shooters Shashikant

Kamble, Ashraf Anvar Shiakh, Vishal Nagnath Kamble and Nikhil

Thorat with main accused Chhabilbhai Patel at Akvira Devi Temple

on Pune - Lonavala Road. It was decided in the said meeting that it

is not proper to kill Jayantibhai Bhanushali at Bhuj and the main

accused Chhabil Patel has good business connection at Raanchi,

Jharkhand and therefore, it was planned to kill him by calling him

at Raanchi through trap and it was decided to go at Raanchi,

Jharkhand and to do necessary recce for the same. Photographs of

the meeting and technical evidences are found during the

investigation. Statements under Section-164 of the Cr.P.C. of the

witnesses Aajinath Kamble and Sachin Adaagade were recorded for

the same.

9. The present applicant accused and main accused

Chhabil Patel were in Delhi on 22/11/2018. During that time,

Chhabil Patel made a phone call to Manisha Goswami from his new

SIM No. 7304146496 at 07:18:22 am. Chhabil Patel received an

SMS from Manisha Goswami. Thus, it has been deduced from

technical CDR that the accused persons were in contact with each

other in connection with the plan of murder at Ranchi. As per the

plan of murdering Jayantibhai Bhanushali at Ranchi, the present

applicant accused and main accused Chhabilbhai Patel went to

Kolkata from Ahmedabad by Indigo Airlines flight No.6E-125 at

06:40 hours on 25/11/2018 and went to Ranchi from Kolkata by

R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021

Indigo Airlins flight No.6E-108 for deciding the place of murder.

After doing necessary recce, both the accused persons went to

Bangalore from Ranchi by Indigo Airlines flight No.6E-108 at 22:10

hours on 26/11/2018 and returned to Ahmedabad from Bangalore

by Indigo Airlines flight No.6E-6779 at 04:50 hours on 27/11/2018.

In the same way, on 29/11/2018, the present applicant accused and

main accused Chhabilbhai Patel left from Ahmedabad by Indigo

Airlines flight No.6E-125 at 06:40 hours in the morning and

reached Kolkata at 09:10 hours and from there, leaving by Indigo

Airlines flight No.6E-344 at 11:35 hours, reached Ranchi at 12:40

hours. Both of them returned to Ahmedabad from Ranchi via

Kolkata by Indigo Airlines flight No.6E-6918 on 01/12/2018. Thus,

it has been transpired from the evidence found during investigation

that the present applicant accused had an active participation with

the main accused in the recce of executing the murder. As per the

pre-plan of trapping and calling Jayantibhai Bhanushali at Ranchi

on 15/12/2018 and getting him murdered by the shooters,

Shashikant Kamble, Ashraf Shaikh, Vishal Kamble etc. - the shooter

hired by the present applicant accused stayed in Hotel Paradise at

Ranchi from 13/12/2018 to 15/12/2018. In the same way, evidence

has been found that accused Manisha Goswami, who trapped

Bhanushali stayed in Hotel Shivani International at Ranchi.

10. Accused Manisha Goswami succeeded in calling

Jayantibhai Bhanushali to Ranchi on 15/12/2018 by trapping him.

R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021

Jayantibhai Bhanushali left for Ranchi from Ahmedabad via Delhi

by air with his nephew Nitin Bhanushali. But, as accused Manisha

Goswami could not be trusted, Jayantibhai returned to Ahmedabad

from Delhi and witness Nitin Bhanushali went to Ranchi alone.

Therefore, the plan of murder of Jayantibhai Bhanushali at Ranchi

failed. The fact has clearly been stated in the statement of witness

Nitin Bhanushali recorded as per section-164 of Cr.P.C. The

applicant accused had called the members of his gang and his co-

accused Manisha Goswami to Ahmedabad on 27/12/2018 to recce

the roads and make planning to kill Jayantibhai Bhanushali while

returning to Ahmedabad from Bhuj in the train. In this manner, the

applicant accused left for Ahmedabad from Pune - Maharashtra in

the Volkswagen Vento car of accused Manisha Goswami at around

1:30 o'clock in the night of 27/12/18 along with his accomplice

Nikhil Thorat and shooter Shashikant Kamble. They reached

Hanshpura Naroda area of Ahmedabad at around quarter to ten

o'clock in morning. Manisha Goswami left for Ahmedabad in a

train from the Vapi railway station at around half past eight o'clock

in the morning of 27/12/18 and she reached Kalupur Railway

Statiom of Ahmedabad at around one o'clock in afternoon. The said

fact has been proved from the mobile phone locations of the

accused persons. On the next i.e. 28/12/18, the applicant, Manisha

Goswami, Nikhil Thorat and shooter Shashikant Kamble went to

Sanand Chokadi on S.G. Highway at around 14:00 o'clock in

afternoon. Here, the main accused of the offence, Chhabil Patel

R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021

came to take shooter Shashikant Kamble in his Creta car No - GJ-

01-RN-5198. The shooter Shashikant Kamble and the main accused

Chhabil Patel left for the Narayan Farm at Bhuj. In the midway,

they took meal at the Ashapura Dhaba Hotel. The bill for the same,

the statement of the hotel manager and the slip of the Samkhyali

Tall Tax from where the said Creta car had passed, have been

attached. In this manner, the accused applicant has played an

important role by handing over the shooter to the main accused

person and conducting necessary recce to commit the offence. On

08/01/2019, the present applicant - accused, Manisha Gajjugiri

Goswami and Nikhil Thorat had stayed at a hotel in Maharashtra.

When they came to know that the names of the present applicant -

accused and Manisha Goswami were mentioned in the FIR about

the murder of Late. Jayantibhai Bhanushali, the accused hid

Manisha Goswami's Volkswagen car in a garage of one of his

acquainted at Pune and switched his mobile phone off. Thereafter,

the accused, Manisha Goswami and Nikhil Thorat, together from

Pune, went to Dhulia, Ujjain, Delhi, Amritsar, Haridvar, Hrishikesh,

Katara - Jammu, Amritsar, Chitrakut, Banaras and Prayagraj -

Uttar Pradesh. They had been on run from one state to another.

Though the Hon'ble Court at Bhachau had issued the warrants of

accused persons under Section-70 of Cr.P.C., they had remained at

large and had been evading arrest for about 300 days from

08/01/2019 to 04/11/2019. The fact is revealed during the

investigation that the present applicant - accused and accused

R/CR.MA/16819/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021

Manisha Goswami had stayed at Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh as

husband and wife.

11. It appears that the present applicant - accused is the

main gang-leader of the shooters' gang based at Yaravda, Pune.

The records of Yaravada Police Station, Pune, Maharashtra speak

about his history of serious crimes as well as the crimes of his

subordinate shooters - accused persons.

12. In view of the aforesaid, the Court is of the view

that prima facie, there is sufficient evidence with the prosecution to

implicate the applicant in the offence and the role of the applicant

in conspiring and identifying the modus in which crime to be

committed is also evident. The Court is, therefore, not inclined to

exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.

13. The Court has perused the judgment of the Sessions

Court, wherein the Sessions Court has assigned cogent and

convincing reasons while rejecting the application of the applicant.

14. In view of the aforesaid reasonings, no case is made out

to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. The application

deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.

(A.Y. KOGJE, J) SHITOLE