Gujarat High Court
Hetal @ Heti W/O Ashokbhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 2 May, 2022
Bench: B.N. Karia
R/CR.A/564/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 564 of 2022
==========================================================
HETAL @ HETI W/O ASHOKBHAI KALABHAI SAU
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YN RAVANI(718) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR S M SOJATWALA(3499) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. HARDIK SONI, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 02/05/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. The appellant preferred one Criminal Misc. Application No.
68 of 2022 before the Court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions
Judge & Special Judge (Atro Court), Junagadh u/s. 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requesting to enlarge the
appellant on regular bail on account of offence being registered vide
C.R. No.11203023211183 of 2021 with Junagadh "A" Division
Police Station, Junagadh for the offence punishable u/s. 302, 120-B,
143, 147, 148, 149, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s.
3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short "the Atrocities Act") as well as u/s.
135 of Gujarat Police Act wherein, the learned 3rd Additional
Sessions Judge & Special Judge (Atro Court), Junagadh rejected
R/CR.A/564/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2022
the said application on 10.02.2022.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred
present appeal u/s 14A of the Atrocities Act.
3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and learned
APP for the respondent-State.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that
appellant is a lady accused having two kids wherein one child is
suffering from serious disease and completely disabled and needs to
have support of someone to take care being an handicapped child of
four years. That appellant being a lady accused is having the
inherent defect of running away from the clutches of the judicial
proceedings nor will have any chance of tampering with the case of
prosecution. That appellant, as per the case of prosecution, was also
not at the place of the alleged incident. That investigation is over
and charge-sheet is filed by the Investigating Agency. Hence, it was
requested by learned advocate for the appellant to quash and set
aside the impugned judgment and order passed by learned 3rd
Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge (Atro Court), Junagadh
and release the appellant on bail.
5. Learned APP appearing for the respondent-State as well as
R/CR.A/564/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2022
learned advocate appearing for the original complainant have
vehemently opposed the submission made by learned advocate
appearing for the appellant and submitted that it is crystal clear from
the charge-sheet papers that present appellant is the conspirator and
she had played major role in providing location of the deceased to
the accused. It is further submitted that appellant has taken out her
smart mobile and removed two sim cards, one of Jio Company and
another of red colour and the appellant had given both the sim card
to the present witness namely Ismail Belim. That appellant had
talked with her husband where is the question to throw away the sim
cards. Referring the statement of Sanjay M. Parmar, it is submitted
that appellant has played major role in giving location of the
deceased person and she was present for planning to kill the
deceased. It is further submitted that sim cards were thrown away
by the present appellant later on. That conspiracy was made by all
the accused persons as they have played their role in killing the
deceased. That present appellant remained at home only to provide
the information of the deceased to the accused and intentionally she
travelled to Haridwar with her husband. Hence, it was requested by
both of them to dismiss the present criminal appeal.
R/CR.A/564/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2022
6. Having gone through the submissions made by learned
advocates appearing for the respective parties as well as learned APP
appearing for the respondent-State and police papers produced on
record, as per the prosecution case of the present appellant was
shown as accused No.10, who is the wife of the accused No.8 and
daughter in law of the accused No.11. It appears that there is no
dispute of the present appellant or her family members with the
deceased person. The alleged incident of attacking the deceased was
taken place attacking the deceased at public place and as per the FIR,
deceased was injured and killed by five persons. Name of the present
appellant was not mentioned in the impugned FIR. After
investigation, witness No.89, who was in a way an accomplice
disclosed that, along accused No.6. he used to find out the location
of the deceased and allegedly informing the present appellant about
the location and accused No.10 used to allegedly mediate with other
accused persons. Appellant was arrested and charge-sheet is filed by
the Investigating Agency. Appellant is a lady accused and having
two kids, wherein one child is suffering from serious disease and
disabled and need support of the present appellant being a mother.
Investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed by the
R/CR.A/564/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2022
Investigating Officers. As per the case of prosecution also, she was
not present at the place of alleged incident of attacking deceased
person. Further, it appears that the case of the prosecution is based
on a statement of the witnesses namely Sanjay Muljibhai Parmar,
who has stated that he used to accompany accused No.6- Buliya to
find out the location of the deceased. As per the statement of this
witness, accused No.10 was sharing location of the deceased may
not be believed at this juncture. Prosecution has also produced and
copy of the CDR and call details, etc.
7. Admittedly, present appellant has not given any blow to the
deceased person or anything is recovered or discovered from her
possession. Under such circumstances, prayer made by the present
appellant requires consideration.
8. In the result, present Criminal Appeal is allowed and the
impugned judgment and order dated 10.02.2022 passed by learned
3rd Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge (Atro Court),
Junagadh in Criminal Misc. Application No. 68 of 2022 is hereby
quashed and set aside. The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on
regular bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the
R/CR.A/564/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2022
conditions that appellant 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 this Court;
9. The authorities will release the appellant only if she 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.
10. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the
prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
Notice is discharged. Direct service is permitted.
(B.N. KARIA, J)
SUYASH
