Gujarat High Court
Darpanbhai Manishbhai Bhatiya vs State Of Gujarat on 30 January, 2023
Bench: Samir J. Dave
R/CR.A/2377/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2377 of 2022
==========================================================
DARPANBHAI MANISHBHAI BHATIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MALAV M MULANI(8844) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Date : 30/01/2023
ORAL ORDER
The present appeal is filed under u/s 14A of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "Atrocity
Act") by the appellant for anticipatory bail in the event of his
arrest on account of offence being registered vide C.R. No.
11993005220257 of 2022 registered with Adesar Police
Station, District Kachchh East Gandhidham for the offence
punishable under Sections 323, 294(b), 506(2), 143, 147, and
149 of the Indian Penal Code; Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and
3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 135 of the Gujarat
Police Act.
R/CR.A/2377/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2023
Though served, none was present for and on behalf of the
respondent no.2 to assist this court in the present matter and
therefore, no arguments on the side of the respondent no.2.
Heard learned advocate for the appellant and learned APP
for the respondent no.1-State.
Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that
the appellant is innocent person and has not committed any
alleged offence and appellant is not connected in any manner
whatsoever with the alleged commission of offence. That the
FIR is nothing but an off shoot of long standing dispute as the
complainant and accused persons named in the FIR are into the
same business of dispossession of vehicle. That, there has been
checkered history of the complainant. That, the FIR is nothing
but an after though in order to implicate the accused persons
as they happen to be business rivals as they share same
business. That in fact the factual matrix of the events would
indicate that the complainant has mendaciously with an object
of keeping the appellant herein behind bars has filed the
present FIR. Present is the case of abuse of the provisions of
Atrocities Act. That, the basis ingredients of the offence are
missing in the complaint and no offence under the Atrocity Act
has been committed by the present appellant. That, specific
role of the present appellant was not disclosed in the
R/CR.A/2377/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2023
complaint. That, present appellant is unnecessarily dragged
into the present offence. Hence, it was requested by learned
advocate for the appellant to allow present appeal.
From the other side, learned APP for the respondent
No.1-State and learned advocate for the respondent no.2 have
strongly opposed the prayer made by the appellant and
submitted that prima facie the offence was clearly made out
against the present appellant. That Section 18A of the Act
clearly bars to grant of anticipatory bail as prayed by the
present appellant. That, the appellant is involved in the serious
offence and therefore, no leniency view can be taken in favour
of the appellant. Ultimately, learned APP for the respondent
no.1-State and learned advocate for the respondent no.2 have
requested to dismiss the present appeal.
Having considered the facts of the case, police papers and
submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant; as
well as learned APP for the respondent No.1-State, it appears
that offence has been registered vide C.R. No.
11993005220257 of 2022 with Adesar Police Station, District
Kachchh East Gandhidham for the offence punishable under
Sections 323, 294(b), 506(2), 143, 147, and 149 of the Indian
Penal Code; Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the
R/CR.A/2377/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2023
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and as
the appellant had an apprehension of his arrest thus he
approached the learned Sessions Court by way of CRMA No.
522 of 2022 wherein learned Sessions Court rejected such
application vide order dated 27.11.2022. Thus, being
aggrieved by such order, appellant has approached this court
by way of present application.
While rejecting the anticipatory bail application, the
learned Sessions Court has observed that complainant has a
licence to seize the vehicle of unpaid loans and as per the
allegations, appellant has threatened the complaint for not
doing his business in their area and thereafter attacked the
complainant with other co accused by using weapons and iron
rode and caused him grievous injuries and also had remarks
on his caste and looking to the allegations levelled against the
appellant and considering the role played by the appellant in
the alleged offence, learned Sessions Court has rejected the bail
application filed by the appellant.
This court is fully aware with the aspect for granting or
rejecting the anticipatory bail application because at the time
of deciding bail application, it is not necessary to make
evaluation of evidence but court should have to consider the
R/CR.A/2377/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2023
role played by the accused in the offence and whether the
offence is having serious is nature or not. Not only that at the
time of deciding the bail application, court should have to
consider the social impact if the accused is released on bail in
such serious nature of offence. In the present case, the
appellant is involved in the serious offence and thus,
considering overall aspects and role played by the appellant in
the offence as well as gravity of the offence, this court is not
inclined to accept the prayer made by the appellant and
accordingly, deems it fit to dismiss present appeal.
Before parting with this judgment, it is hereby clarified
that the aforesaid observations made in this order have been
made for the purpose of considering the present application for
anticipatory bail. Therefore, same shall not come in the way of
the trial court for considering the application that may be filed
by the appellant for regular bail or at the time of trial and the
trial court concerned shall not be influenced by the
observations made herein above.
In the result, present appeal stands dismissed.
(SAMIR J. DAVE,J)
K. S. DARJI
