Gujarat High Court

Vaghari Sanjaybhai Arjanbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 19 December, 2022

Bench: Gita Gopi

     R/CR.MA/13080/2022                               JUDGMENT DATED: 19/12/2022




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 13080 of 2022


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

==========================================================

1      Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
       to see the judgment ?

2      To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3      Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
       of the judgment ?

4      Whether this case involves a substantial question
       of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
       of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                          VAGHARI SANJAYBHAI ARJANBHAI
                                     Versus
                               STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR.PRANAV TRIVEDI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                                 Date : 19/12/2022

                                ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This application has been filed under section 439

of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular

bail in connection with the FIR being

R/CR.MA/13080/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/12/2022

C.R.No.11206002220236 of 2022 registered with

Visnagar Taluka Police Station, Dist: Mehasana

punishable under Sections 302, 307, 143, 147,

148, 149, 504, 506(2), 427, 337 of the Indian

Penal Code and Section 135 of the G.P.Act.

2. Mr.Pratik Barot, learned advocate for the

applicants stated that the incident of 02.04.2004

has led to filing of two FIRs, and since nephew

of the complainant in the present FIR,

Mahesbhai Dashratbhai died, hence the FIR

attracted Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code

for murder; while the cross complaint invokes

the provisions of Sections 323, 324, 504, 506(2),

143, 147, 148, 149, 337 of the IPC and Section

135 of the G.P. Act, which was registered on

the very same day i.e. on 03.4.2022 being FIR

No.11206002220236 of 2022 registered with

Visnagar Taluka Police Station, Dist: Mehasana.

2.1 Mr.Barot submitted that actual genesis of the

crime is suppressed by the complainant which

R/CR.MA/13080/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/12/2022

gets clarify from the statement of witnesses,

medical evidence and cross FIR and even by the

medical evidence and chargesheet of the present

matter. Mr.Barot submits that the place of

incident initially shown near 'Meldi Mata

Temple' which begins from an issue of parking

of the Rikshaw (chhakdo) near the temple.

Mr.Barot further submits that actually the

incident had occurred when the father of the

complainant of cross FIR, Arjanbhai Lakhabhai,

had gone at the temple to rebuke them for

teasing his granddaughter. Mr.Barot submits

that drawing a case from parking of 'Chhakdo'

Rikshaw, becomes improbable, and as per the

version, the brother of the complainant, Chunilal

Balchandbhai, had asked Karan Sanjaybhai not

to park the vehicle near the temple, to that it

is alleged that, he told him that he would park

his vehicle there as it not their father's

property. Advocate Mr. Barot submits that, as

per the prosecution case, during that period,

Dharmendra Arjanbhai came there and asked

R/CR.MA/13080/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/12/2022

them, as to why, they are threatening him. The

complainant's brother Chunilal again asked him

not put his 'Chhakdo' there, and it is stated

that at this time Arjanbhai Lakhabhai came

there and started abusing and threatening them

saying that the 'Chhakdo' would be parked there

only, and asked them to do whatever they want.

It is further stated that Chunilal asked Arjan

Lakha not to threaten him; at that time, it is

alleged that Karan Sanjay and Dharmendra

Arjan with their knifes assaulted Chunilal

Bhaichandbhai and caused injury at his left ear.

2.2 Referring to the Medical Certificate of Chunilal Bhaichand, Advocate Mr.Barot submits that,

Chunilal Bhaichandbhai before the Medical

Officer, General Hospital, Mehsana has given the

history on his own and had stated about the

assault injury at Hasanpur around 7.00 p.m.

beaten with pipe by Sanjaybhai Arjanbhai,

Dhanabhai Arjanbhai and Kishanbhai Mogarbhai.

Mr.Barot further submitted that the injury was

R/CR.MA/13080/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/12/2022

alleged to have been caused by knife, but the

history suggests that he was beaten with pipe

by three of the persons by adding Dhanabhai

Arjanbhai and Kishanbhai Mogarbhai with

Sanjaybhai Arjanbhai. Mr.Barot submitted that

prior to that, the Injury Certificate of General

Hospital, Vishnagar reflects the history that on

02.04.2022 at about 7.00 in the evening near

Hasanpur temple, Sanjaybhai, Arjanbhai and

Arjanbha's two sons had beaten him with

wooden baton and knife, while the said case is

not reflected in the FIR. Mr.Barot submits that

this itself suggests that the genesis of the

original complaint gets falsified.

2.3 Mr.Barot further submitted that, had the issue

arose because of the 'Chhakda' Rikshaw, then

there would not have on the side of the driver

of 'Chhakda', who is shown as Karan Sanjay, to

have with him knife near the temple premises.

He further submitted that the very case of

showing an injury with the knife on Chunilal

R/CR.MA/13080/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/12/2022

Balchandbhai is false on the face of the record;

the injury that gets reflected in the Medical

Certificate is simple injury with hard and blunt

object, as opined by the Doctor of General

Hospital, Visnagar.

2.4 Mr.Barot submitted that as per the statement of

the girl aged about 15 years Hiral-

granddaughter of Arjanbhai Lakhabhai, she had

gone near the temple, and they had teased her.

According to her statement recorded on

12.04.2022, she had informed her grandfather

that, when she was going towards home after

carrying the milk at about 7.00 on the very

same day near the 'Meldi Mata Temple', Mahesh

Dashrath told her something and therefore, she

informed the same to her grandfather

Arjanlakaha, who had gone to rebuke Mahesh

Dashrathbhai, and according to the statement of

the minor victim, after sometime, there was

outcry near 'Meldi Mata Temple' as her

grandfather was shouting as Mahesh

R/CR.MA/13080/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/12/2022

Dashrathbhai was beating her grandfather, and

therefore she, her mother, aunt - Kantaben

Sanjaybhai and her sister Gayatriben had gone

there to relieve them; and according to her

statement at that time her uncle Sanjaybhai's

son Karan had come there, who was heading

towards home on 'Chhakdo', stopped his vehicle

near the temple, and he intervened to release.

Maheshbhai Dashrathbhai, Vishnu Dashrathbhai,

Sagar @ Lalabhai Rajubhai and Chhanabhai

Bhalchandbhai were present there, during that

period, as per the statement of victim, Mahesh

Dashrathbhai hit Karan on his head with iron

pipe and Chhanabhai Bhalchandbhai were

present with stick had beaten him on the

shoulder; while Vishnu Dashrathbhai with a

ironpipe and Dayabhai Bhaichand too with

ironpipe had beaten her uncle Sanjaybhai on the

head; and Vishnubhai had beaten her father

Dharmendrabhai with an iron pipe. The victim

girl had given further details about the injury

sustained by her aunt Kantaben, Madhiben and

R/CR.MA/13080/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/12/2022

her grandfather at the hands of deceased

Mahesh Dashrathbhai with iron pipe. She

further stated that at that time, Pintu

Sampatbhai and Dinesh had thrown bricks on

her and her mother and they were also injured.

2.5 As per the present FIR, the incident near 'Meldi

Mata Temple', after the assault on Chunilal

Bhaichand, the Complainant, Vishnu Dinesh,

Arbind Girdhar, Lalabhai Rajabahi and Pintu

Sampatbhai intervened and got Chunilal release,

and they were moving towards their home. Here,

they are not accompanied by deceased Mahesh

Dashrathbhai. While the cross complaint shows the presence of deceased Maheshbai Dashratbhai,

but actually the grandfather had gone at the

temple to scold Maheshbhai.

2.6 As per the FIR, all of them were heading

towards home alongwith injured Chunilal,

reaching at a place near the house of Kanubhai

Balchandbhai, it is stated that Karan

R/CR.MA/13080/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/12/2022

Sanjaybhai, Dharmendra Arjanbhai, Dipak Ashok,

Sanjay Arjanbhai, Arjanlakhabhai,

Bholusanjaybhai, Prahaladbhai Shankarbhai,

Kishannagar, Dinesh Shankarbhai, Vishalprakash,

Prakash Atmaram, Babubhai Shankarbhai,

Rahulrajubhai, all in a unity had caused assault

on them and it is stated by the complainant

that at this time, the nephew Maheshbhai

Dashrathbhai intervened.

2.7 Mr.Barot submitted that the very entry of

Maheshbhai at the place near the house of

Kanubhai Bhaichandbhai becomes doubtful since

he was not present alongwith others at Meldi

Mata's Temple. He further submitted that cross

FIR is required to be read as at the very

temple, grandfather Arjanbhai specifically stated

that he had gone to scold Maheshbhai

Dashrathbhai as he had teased the minor girl.

2.8 As per the FIR, when Maheshbhai Dashrathbhai

intervened, Prahaladbhai, Kishanbhai Nagarbhai,

R/CR.MA/13080/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/12/2022

Dineshbhai Shankarbhai, Vishal Prakashbhai,

Prakash Atmaram, Babubhai Shankarbhai, Rahul

Rajubhai had caught hold of Maheshbhai

Dashrathbhai, and the complaint further says

that, Deepakbhai Ashokbhai, Dharmendrabhai

Arjanbhai, Karanbhai Sanjaybhai, Sanjaybhai

Arjanbhai, Ashokbhai Arjanbhai, all with their

knife assaulted Maheshbhai and caused injury. It

is stated that to save Maheshbhai from further

beatings, the complainant's nephews Lalabhai

Rajubhai, Munnabhai Kanubhai and the

deceased's son - Yogesh intervened and thus,

Lalabhai Rajubhai, Vishal Prakash flinged bricks

and Munnabhai Kanubhai, Dharmendra

Arjanbhai, Karan Sanjaybhai, with their knifes

and Arjanbhai Lalabhai with iron-crowbar, made

deadly assault and caused injury. Bholu

Sanjay injured Yogeshbhai on head with iron-

crowbar, and thereafter, as the complainant's

nephew got unconscious, it is stated that all ran

away from the place and during that period, the

deceased's brother Vishnubhai, deceased's

R/CR.MA/13080/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/12/2022

daughter Renuka, deceased's sister Asha and

deceased's wife Bhavana came at the place and

Vishnubhai called 108 ambulance since the

health of Maheshbhai worsened, therefore, they

made him sleep in the EEco Car of Vishnubhai

and took him for medical treatment. It is

alleged that when they were going out from

Vagri Vas, Karan Sanjay, Sanjay Arjan threw

bricks on the EEco Car, which damaged left side

glass.

2.9 Mr. Barot submitted that Lala Rajubhai,

Munnabhai Kanubhai and Yogesh Maheshbhai,

are the persons who have alleged to have

received deadly assault from the accused, while

Lalabhai Rajubhai was not medically examined

by any Doctor. As per the medical history of

Kenilbhai Kanubhai, who is Munnabhai

Kanubhai, he had stated that he was beaten by

Arjanbhai Lakhabhai, Sanjaybhai Lakhabhai,

Ashokbhai Arjanbhai with the stick and bricks.

Mr. Barot submits that there is a stitch wound

R/CR.MA/13080/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/12/2022

near left occupital region 3 cm long abrasion.

According to Advocate Mr.Barot, there was a

group clash between all the present over the

statement of Yogesh Maheshbhai - history given

before the Doctor shows that he was assaulted

with iron-crowbar by Ashok Arjan, Arjan Lakha,

and Sanjay Lakha the incise wound so received

is concluded from a sharp cutting object by the

Medical Officer.

2.10 Mr.Barot submitted that in cross complaint,

almost 13 persons were injured, which includes

Madhiben Ashokbhai, Hiralben Dharmendrabhai,

Ashokbhai Aryanbhai, Kunal Sanjaybhai, Karan Sanjaybhai, Dharmendra Aryanbhai, Gayatriben

Ashokbhai, Kokilaben Dharmendrabhai,

Kantaben Sanjaybhai, Aryanbhai Lakhabhai,

Sanjaybhai Aryanbhai. He further submits that

on 02.04.2022 between 7.50 p.m. to 8.20 p.m.,

few of them were brought in 108 ambulance and

others had gone with some relatives and the

Medical Officer, Visnagar had examined them,

R/CR.MA/13080/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/12/2022

and for further treatment, they were referred

to General Hospital, Visnagar at around 9.00 to

10.00 p.m. Mr.Barot submits that Kantaben was

admitted as an indoor patient on 03.04.2022 and

discharged on 05.04.2022. Doctor's Opinion for

Ashokbhai Arjanbhai for injury which was

crushed grievous was by hard and blunt object.

Sanjaybhai Arjanbhai was also referred for

surgical opinion which the injury was observed

to be simple in nature. Dharmendra Arjanbhai

was admitted on 03.04.2022 and surgical

opinion shows that the injury was with hard

and blunt object and injury No.4 was by sharp

object. Madhiben Ashokbhai's surgical opinion

reflects that both the injuries were fresh and

simple caused by hard and blunt object.

Gayatriben Ashokbhai's Orthopedic opinion shows

simple injury caused by hard and blunt object.

Surgical opinions of Kokilaben and Hiralben also

show fresh and simple injuries. Karanbhai

Sanjaybhai's surgical opinion shows that Injury

R/CR.MA/13080/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/12/2022

were caused by hard and blunt object. Arjanbhai

Lakhabhai's injury Nos.1 & 3 were found to be

grievous caused by hard and blunt object and

there was fracture noted on the right shoulder

and on the left hand index finger. Mr.Barot

submitted that there is no explanation from the

complainant about injuries sustained by accused

and the witnesses of cross FIR. It was,

therefore, prayed that the present application

may be allowed and the applicants herein may

be released on regular bail.

3. Countering the arguments, Mr.Pranav Trivedi,

learned APP, vehemently contended that all the medical reports in the cross complaints are got

up and afterthoughts. He submitted that very

cross complaint is developed only after having

found that Maheshbhai Dasrathbhai had

succumbed to death because of brutal injuries

caused by knife at the vital organ of the body.

Mr.Trivedi submitted that there were about

seventeen injury which include seven injury near

R/CR.MA/13080/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/12/2022

the right and left nipples and one incised

wound around 3 x 1 cm length at the scalp,

and one incise wound at left temporal lower

part horizontal 3 cm x 1 cm horizontal both

angle acute and about 4 abrasions and a stab

incise wound on left scapula, one stab incise

wound at the right side back and two further

abrasion. Mr.Trivedi submitted that the incise

wound at the lungs have become fatal and the

cause of death was shock due to injury to right

lung. He further submitted that the whole

family of Arjanbhai Lakhabhai was involved, and

thus chargesheet has been filed against eight of

them, where one is child in conflict with law.

Mr.Trivedi, submitted that all the accused had

intention to do away with Maheshbhai and

therefore with a perfect design, armed with

knife and iron pipe, iron-crowbar had assaulted

and caused deadly injury to the deceased and

thus, submitted that no case of even self defence

could be considered, more so, at the bail stage

where the whole family was involved in the

R/CR.MA/13080/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/12/2022

incident.

3.1 Referring to the Judgment of State of Gujarat

Vs. Lalji Popat & Ors. reported in 1988 (2)

GLH 114, Mr.Trivedi submitted that, the

paramount consideration for bail has to be kept

in mind and the alleged weapon is the knife

and iron- crowbar, and when the nexus of the

incident and the death is clear on record, even

supported by the medical evidence and

postmortem report, Mr. Trivedi submitted that

though there is a group rivalry, the case has to

be viewed seriously and bail application required

to be rejected. Mr. Trivedi further submitted

that all the accused were aggressors and the

deceased had intervened to stop the quarrel

while all the accused had made him the victim.

Mr.Trivedi further submitted that as per the

cross FIR, Dinesh Shankarbhai, Vishal Prakash,

Rahul Rajubhai and Kunal @ Bhola Sanjaybhai,

were the person who had intervened to stop the

quarrel and had removed them from the place,

R/CR.MA/13080/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/12/2022

but the very statement of those witnesses do not

support the case put up in the Cross FIR,

which has been filed with a delay of about 16

hours. The case of teasing minor girl is an

afterthought and developed story to protect the

skin, and such facts originated only after the

death of Maheshbhai. It was, therefore, prayed

that no discretion may be exercised in favour of

the applicant.

4. Countering the arguments, Mr.Barot, relied upon

the judgment in the case of Suresh Singhal Vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in 2017(0)

AIJEL-SC 59672 and in the case of Ex.Ct.

Mahadev Vs. Director General, Boarder Security

Force reported in 2022(0)AIJEL-SC-69440 and in

the case of Gurwinder Singh @ Sonu Etc. Vs. State

of Punjab reported in 2018(0) AIJEL-SC-62251 and

submits that the place of occurrence gets

changed in the FIR of the complainant, the

chargesheet does not disclose who are the

aggressors. The injuries sustained by about

R/CR.MA/13080/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/12/2022

thirteen of the witnesses of the other side have

not been explained. Mr. Barot stated that there

is no evidence to show that accused had come

with deadly weapons, nor any purposeful design

could be shown in the FIR that the accused had

the intention to kill Maheshbhai. Mr.Barot

stated Section 97 of the IPC provides for the

right of private defence of the body and of

property and such right of private defence is

available when the accused are suddenly

confronted with the necessity of averting an

impending danger, and if the accused

apprehends that such an offence is contemplated,

and when there is actual commission of offence,

the accused would have right to exercise the

private defence. It is further stated that it is

unrealistic to expect a person under assault to

modulate his defence step by step with any

arithmetical exactitude and in process, if the

person sustained injuries succumbs to death then

every injury to the deceased is not required to

be explained when the injury sustained by the

R/CR.MA/13080/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/12/2022

accused have not been explained by the

prosecution. Mr.Barot states that the case would

fall under Section 304 of the IPC and there are

evidence which shows that the deceased inflicted

injuries to almost all and was carrying wooden

baton in his own car.

5. The genesis of both the FIRs, which has arisen

from the common accident are shown to be

different; one is shown as 'Chhakdo' vehicle

while the cross complaint status of the deceased

having teased the minor girl, and the

grandfather thus had gone at the temple to

rebuke the other side; while the presence of deceased has not been shown at the temple in

the FIR, while cross complaint states that the

grandfather has scolded the deceased at the

temple. The initially place of incident, as per

the present FIR, is the 'Meldi Mata Temple, and

it is alleged that Karan Sanjaybhai and

Dharmendra Arjan, who had came in 'Chhakdo'

vehicle had assaulted with knife and had injured

R/CR.MA/13080/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/12/2022

Chunilal Bhaichandbhai at his left ear; while

the medical certificate of Chunilal shows the

injury on the left ear as CLW 1.5 c.m., which

according to the history given by him before the

Medical Officer, he was beaten by pipe at 9.55

p.m., and on 8.10 p.m. before the Medical

Officer, General Hospital, Vishnagar, stated that

he was assaulted with the wooden baton and

knife. According to the observation of the

Medical officer, the injury would be possible by

hard and blunt object. Thereafter, the FIR

changes the place of incident, which is near the

house of Kanubhai Bhaichandbhai; while in the

cross FIR, the incident continues at 'Meldi Mata

Temple'. Though, many from the side of the

complainant were present there, it is alleged

that nine of them had caught hold of Mahesh

Dashrath and five of them had inflicted blows,

which are accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 & 6, and thus

it is alleged that Dipak Ashokbhai, Dharmendra

Arjanbhai, Karan Sajnaybhai, Sanjay Arjanbhai,

Ashok Arjanbhai inflicted knife blows on Mahesh

R/CR.MA/13080/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/12/2022

Dashrath. It is required to be observed that

seven had caught hold of deceased and five have

inflicted blows.

6. Here, in this case, chargesheet is only against

nine, which includes, one in Column-II as

juvenile in conflict with law. Arjan Lakha and

his 3 sons viz. Dharmendra, Sanjay, Ashok, son

of Sanjay Karan and son of Ashok - Dipak, are

shown to be inflictors; while Lalabhai Rajubhai,

Munnabhai Kanubhai and Yogesh Maheshbhai

were the persons, who had intervened, but as

noted, none had not sustained any vital injury.

According to the chargehseet, Lalabhai Rajubhai had not even visited the Doctor, while Yogesh

Maheshbhai was given treatment at OPD and

Munna Kanubha was observed to have sustained

injury by hard and blunt object. Thirteen

witnesses from the side of the accused had

sustained injury which included women, while

none others from the complainant side had

received any vital injury. The panchnama, was

R/CR.MA/13080/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/12/2022

drawn of the Car of the deceased Maheshbhai,

which was at the place of offence being No.GJ-

18-DA-3451. The Panchnama refers the EECO

Car from which below the middle seat, the

panchas found 55.5 inch wooden baton, and

another wooden baton of 29.5 inch from the rear

side of the Car, and on both the wooden sticks

the Panchas found blood stains which was seized

under the instructions of F.S.L. Officer.

Panchnama drawn of scene of offence is common

in both the FIRs. The place of offence is shown

as 100 ft. distance between 'Meldi Mata Temple'

towards south to road at Munnabhai Kanubhai

Bhaichandbhai Devipujak's house, on the blocks

at the front-yard of the Meldi Mata Temple, two

cement benches were observed and near the

bench they found wooden stick and blood stains

were also observed; the stick was sent for FSL

examination. The blood stains were also observed

at the block pavement near the temple. Near

the house of accused Sanjay Arjan, near the

cabin, they found iron cot and wooden stick, the

R/CR.MA/13080/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/12/2022

stick is observed to be a branch of a tree and

even FSL Officer observed blood stains near his

house; this stick found near the house of

Sanjaybhai was also sent for FSL examination;

thereafter at a distance of about 50 ft., between

the house of Munnabhai Kanubhai Devpujak and

Devipujak Ishwarbhai Lavjibhai on the RCC

road within the circumference of about One

Foot, the FSL Officer also observed blood stains;

and on the northern side at about six feet

distance from the house of Munnabhai too blood

stains were observed. The ECO Car being

No.GJ-18-DA-3451 of deceased was found near

his house in damage condition. The glass pieces

was seen inside the car and from the door of

the car, the FSL Officer took samples from

blood stains and as observed earlier, from below

the seat, and from the rear side of car, wooden

baton were seized.

7. At the place of incident, there were about 14

persons present there, while only nine of them

R/CR.MA/13080/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/12/2022

have been made accused. The injury which is

alleged to have been sustained by Chunilal

Bhaichand on the left ear does not appear to be

any serious injury, while he has not given exact

clarification of the weapon which has caused

injury to him. While the people, who alleged to

have intervened to protect the deceased have not

sustained any vital injury. The bricks were

thrown there; the weapon from the counter-side

shown as stick, baton, iron pipe, iron-crowbar

and knife. The prosecution has failed to explain

why most of the family of Arjanbhai Lakhabhai

were found involved, when the genesis of the

complaint starts from parking of a Chhakda

vehicle near the temple, which is a public place

and would be a matter of importance for all the

villagers. The cause of quarrel is not disclosed.

How Maheshbhai Dasrathbhai, deceased, came at

the place of the incident is not clarified as his

presence is not shown at the temple and wooden

baton were also found from the vehicle of the

deceased. His car was found damage, while none

R/CR.MA/13080/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/12/2022

of the persons, who had taken him to the

hospital had sustained injury.

8. Considering the facts of the present FIR and

cross FIR, where the presence of the deceased at

the temple is not shown by the complainant,

and when the injuries sustained by the

witnesses of the Cross FIR, has not been

explained, and the real cause does not get

disclosed, and the attack and counter-attack as

described by both the side creates different

version, therefore, the discretion is exercised in

favour of the applicants.

9. Hence, the present application is allowed. The

applicants are ordered to be released on regular

bail in connection with the FIR being

C.R.No.11206002220236 of 2022 registered with

Visnagar Taluka Police Station, Dist: Mehasana on

executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees

Fifteen Thousand only) each with one surety of

the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

R/CR.MA/13080/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/12/2022

trial Court and subject to the conditions that

the applicants shall:

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or

misuse liberty;

[b] not act in a manner injurious 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 concerned trial court;

[e] 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 the

concerned trial court;

10. The authorities shall adhere to its own Circular

relating to COVID-19 and, thereafter, will

release the applicants only if the applicants are

not required in connection with any other

R/CR.MA/13080/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/12/2022

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.

11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.