Gujarat High Court
Aiyubbhai Ismailbhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 9 October, 2023
Bench: M. R. Mengdey
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9870/2023 ORDER DATED: 09/10/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
CHARGESHEET) NO. 9870 of 2023
==========================================================
AIYUBBHAI ISMAILBHAI SUNESARA(MOMIN)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. BHADRISH S. RAJU, ADVOCATE with MR. DHANESH R PATEL(8226)
MR. KUMAR H. TRIVEDI for the Applicant(s) No. 2
MR. PRANAV TRIVEDI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 09/10/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 439 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in
connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11195009220507/2022 registered with
Chhapi Police Station, District Banaskantha for the offences punishable under
Sections 306, 506(2), 323, 342 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Bhadrish S. Raju for the Applicant and
learned APP Mr. Pranav Trivedi for the Respondent - State.
3. Learned Advocate Mr. Kumar H. Trivedi appears and states that he has
received instructions to appear on behalf of the Original Complainant and he
shall be filing his Vakalatnana during the course of the day.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Raju has submitted that the investigation is over
and the charge sheet is filed. The role attributed to the Applicant is to the
effect that the deceased had eloped with the daughter of the Applicant No. 1
and both the present Applicants had found them out and were taken to the hotel
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9870/2023 ORDER DATED: 09/10/2023
undefined
of Applicant No. 2, where both the Applicants had made the deceased to write
a note admitting his guilt. He was also beaten by both the present Applicants
severely. His photographs and videos were taken which were subsequently
circulated by the present Applicants, and therefore, he being humiliated, the
deceased committed suicide. He submitted that the alleged incident of keeping
the deceased in captivity had taken place on 1.11.2022 whereas the deceased
had committed suicide on 4.11.2022. Thus, there was no proximity between
the incident that took place on 1.11.2022 and the deceased committed suicide
on 4.11.2022. Learned Advocate Mr. Raju further submitted that the deceased
and the daughter of Applicant No.1 had performed the marriage. However,
since the family of the deceased was not ready to accept the daughter of
Applicant No.1 as their daughter-in-law, the deceased was under tremendous
pressure and that may be the case for him to commit suicide. He further
submitted that there were several other offences registered against the deceased
and, one such offence was registered against him for the offence punishable
under the POCSO Act. He also submitted that from the suicide note itself, it
appears that the deceased was being harassed and tortured by several other
people of the village. Thus, the Applicants herein were not at all responsible
for the deceased having committed suicide. Learned Advocate Mr. Raju has
further submitted that the other co-accused has been considered by this Hon'ble
Court for grant of regular bail. He has further submitted that the other accused
persons have been granted regular bail after filing of charge sheet. The brother
of Applicant No.1 with similar allegations in the FIR and charge sheet papers,
has been granted regular bail by the learned Trial Court, and therefore, parity
may be granted to the present Applicants. The suicide note as well as the FIR
clearly reflects that the own family members of the deceased were not
supporting him and that the statement of the Investigation Officer is very
categorical that no complaint was filed by the deceased or any other family
member or even the friend Hardik with respect to the alleged incident dated
1.11.2022. That the suicide cannot be said to be proximate to the alleged
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9870/2023 ORDER DATED: 09/10/2023
undefined
incident. The statement of Faima is that she was harassed, blackmailed by the
deceased. It is further submitted that the statement of Hardik is clear that on
the day of the alleged incident, after the same occurred, he asked the accused
persons to drop him back to the garage and that after two days, he came to
know that his friend, i.e. the deceased had committed suicide, which shows that
he did not even try to contact the deceased after the alleged incident. It is
further submitted that the Applicant No.2 has been acquitted in one of the
antecedent. He therefore submitted to allow the present Application and
enlarge the present Applicants on regular bail by allowing the present
Application.
5. Learned Advocate Mr. Raju has sought to rely upon the following
judgments in support of his submission:
(i) (2002) 5 SCC 371 : Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P.
(ii) (2010) 12 SCC 190 : S.S.Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Another
(iii) Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No. 1830 of 2023 : Shahrukh @ Banti v.
The State of Madhya Pradesh
(iv) (2009) 16 SCC 605 : Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of
NCT of Delhi)
(v) 2016 SCC OnLine (Kar.) 1244 : M.J.Ananda @ Ananda v. State of
Karnataka
6. The Application is opposed by learned APP Mr. Pranav Trivedi
appearing for the Respondent - State. He submitted that the deceased and the
daughter of Applicant No.1 had a love affair, and therefore, both of them had
eloped and performed the marriage. Thereafter both the present Applicants had
taken the deceased as well as the daughter of the Applicant No.1 from
Ahmedabad in two separate cars. The deceased was taken to the hotel of
Applicant No.2 where he was badly beaten and thereafter was made to write a
note admitting his guilt. The photographs and videos of the same were also
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9870/2023 ORDER DATED: 09/10/2023
undefined
publicised on the social media due to which the deceased felt humiliated and
committed suicide. Thus, there is clear and active participation on part of both
the Applicants in commission of the offence in question. Learned APP has
therefore submitted to dismiss the present Application.
7. Leaned Advocate Mr. Kumar H. Trivedi appearing on behalf of the
Original Complainant has submitted that the deceased had committed suicide
because of physical and mental torture meted out to him by both the present
Applicants. The Applicant No.2 herein is a notorious person of the area and
had assured the Applicant No.1 that he would save him if something happens
and thereafter both had gone to Ahmedabad and had taken the deceased along
with them to the hotel of Applicant No.2. Thus, there is active participation on
part of the both the Applicants. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present
Application.
8. Heard learned Advocate for the parties and perused the record.
9. As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased Rameshji was having an
affair with the daughter of Applicant No.1 namely Faima and therefore had
eloped with her. Thereafter both of them had performed the marriage. The
marriage between the two was not liked by the Applicant No.1. After the
marriage, it appears that the deceased and the daughter of Applicant No.1 were
staying at Ahmedabad. Both the Applicants went to Ahmedabad to fetch the
deceased and daughter of Applicant No.1, who were then taken to the village in
two separate cars. The deceased was taken to the hotel of Applicant No.2
where he was kept in confinement and beaten by both the Applicants. The
deceased was also made to write a note admitting his guilt. The photographs
and videographs of the beating meted out to the deceased by the present
Applicants were also taken, which were subsequently circulated on the social
media by the present Applicants. The deceased had also written a suicide note
wherein he has clearly stated that both the present Applicants had taken him to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9870/2023 ORDER DATED: 09/10/2023
undefined
the hotel of Applicant No.2 where he was beaten and he was made to write
something which was circulated on the social media. The people of the village
were harassing and were talking ill about him and that is why he has committed
suicide.
10. The investigating agency has recorded the statement of Hardik M.
Someshwara. He, in his statement has submitted that he was also taken along
with the deceased and Faima to the hotel of Applicant No.2 and he was also
beaten by both the present Applicants. He also states that the deceased and the
daughter of Applicant No.1 were also brutally beaten by both the present
Applicants and the deceased was made to write an apology letter of which the
video was made and photograph was also taken. The learned Advocate
appearing for the Applicants contents that the conduct of witness Hardik does
not inspire confidence, as after 1.11.2022, i.e. the date of incident, till
6.11.2022, he does not inform anybody about the incident. Therefore, the
statement of this witness is not reliable.
11. This Court has also gone through the judgments cited on behalf of the
Applicants. The judgments cited above by the learned Advocate for the
Applicants mainly relate to the reliability of the suicide note and that there was
no proximity between the alleged incident and the suicide committed by the
deceased in the respective cases.
11.1 In the present case, the suicide note written by the deceased, clearly
implicates both the present Applicants for having tortured him and having
made him write an apology letter, which was videographed and photographed
and the said videos and photographs were also widely circulated on social
media.
11.2 As discussed herein above, the statement of witness Hardik M.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9870/2023 ORDER DATED: 09/10/2023
undefined
Someshwara lends support to what is stated by the deceased in the suicide note.
By the alleged conduct on part of the present Applicants which is discussed
herein above, they had clearly instigated deceased to commit suicide, and
therefore, the judgments cited on behalf of the Applicants would render no
assistance to them so far as the present Application is concerned.
12. At this stage, this Court is not required to appreciate the evidence, and
therefore, whether the statement given by this witness is believable or not, is
not required to be taken into consideration. Even if the statement of this
witness is discarded at this stage, then also the suicide note written by the
deceased clearly demonstrates the role played by both the present Applicants.
It is also clear from the material available on record it was because of the
humiliation caused to the deceased because of the incident dated 1.11.2022, he
had committed suicide.
13. Considering the aforesaid aspects, no case is made out. Hence, the
present Application stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
J.N.W
