Gujarat High Court
Balram @ Baliya Ariskshit @ Argit ... vs State Of Gujarat on 10 January, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17168/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 17168 of 2023
(FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET)
=======================================================
BALRAM @ BALIYA ARISKSHIT @ ARGIT BANCHHANIT BAHERA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=======================================================
Appearance:
KRUSHALKUMAR D SHELADIYA(8017) for the Applicant No. 1
MR KANVA ANTANI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 10/01/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed under Section 439
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for
regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.
No.I-36/2015 registered with the Sarthana Police
Station, Surat for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under
Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.
2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Krushalkumar D.
Sheladiya for the applicant and learned APP Mr.
Kanva Antani for the respondent - State of
Gujarat.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that
the so-called incident has occurred on 20.08.2015,
for which, FIR has been lodged on 20.08.2015 and
in connection with the same, the applicant has
been arrested on 14.05.2022 and since then, he is
in judicial custody i.e. more than one hand half
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17168/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2024
undefined
year. Learned advocate submitted that now the
investigation is completed and after submission of
the chargesheet, the present application is filed.
Learned advocate submitted that initially the FIR
was registered against unknown persons, however
during the course of investigation, the statement
of the eyewitness has been recorded and on the
strength of the statement given by the said
witnesses, the applicant is arraigned as an
accused. Learned advocate submitted that during
the course of investigation, the concerned IO has
collected CCTV footage, however, it is found out
that the applicant was not present at the place of
incident. Learned advocate submitted that no blood
stain was found upon the wooden stick seized
during the course of panchnama. Learned advocate
has also placed reliance upon the decisions,
details of which are mentioned in the memo of
application, and submitted that considering the
ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the case
of the applicant may be considered. Learned
advocate submitted that there is no past
antecedent of the applicant - accused. It is,
therefore, urged that the present application may
be allowed by releasing the applicant on bail
imposing suitable conditions.
4. On the other hand, learned APP for the respondent-
State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to
the nature and gravity of the offence. It is
submitted that the role of the present applicant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17168/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2024
undefined
is clearly spelt out from the body of the
compilation of the police papers. Learned APP
submitted that during the course of investigation,
the investigating Officer has recorded the
statement of four eye witnesses, wherein they have
in categoric terms stated that the applicant has
inflicted wooden stick upon the head and other
body parts of the deceased and the blood stain was
found from the wooden log. Learned advocate
submitted that the applicant has ferocious mindset
and if the applicant is released on bail, it would
have adverse impact on the case of the prosecution
and there are also chances that the applicant will
tamper with the evidence and influence the
witnesses. Learned advocate submitted that the
incident is of the year 2015 and the applicant has
been arrested in the year 2022 and during all
period, the applicant was absconding. Learned APP
submitted that the applicant is resident of Orissa
and if he is granted bail then, his presence would
not be secured. It is, therefore, urged that the
present application may not be entertained.
5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on
behalf of the respective parties and perused the
papers of the investigation and considered the
allegations levelled against the applicant and the
role played by the applicant. I have also
considered the reasoning given by the concerned
court while rejecting the bail application and the
affidavit filed by the IO opposing the said
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17168/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2024
undefined
application.
6. It is the settled position of the law that, at
this juncture detailed discussion of evidence and
canvassing of the allegations contained in FIR as
well as affidavit of the concerned Investigating
Officer or the merits of the case as well, is not
necessary and should be avoided.
7. It is found out from the record that the applicant
- accused is involved in a serious offence of
murder of innocent person. It is found out from
the statements of the witnesses including
eyewitness that the applicant - accused has
inflicted vital blow of wooden log on the head of
the decased and because of the injuries caused by
the applicant, the deceased succumbed to the same
and thus, the presence of the applicant is also
established from the statements of those
witnesses. Further, the blood stain was found on
the wooden log used by the applicant - accused at
the time of commission of crime. It is also found
out that during the course of investigation, the
concerned IO has collected CCTV footage of nearby
place of incident, from which, it is found out
that the applicant was equipped with the wooden
log just before the incident. As stated above, the
concerned Investigating Officer has recorded the
statements of four eye-witnesses, who have in
categoric terms have narrated entire sequence of
events as to how the applicant - accused has
committed alleged offence and thus, there is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17168/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2024
undefined
direct evidence available on record connecting the
applicant - accused with the commission of crime.
Thus considering the nature of offence, role
played by the accused and involvement of the
applicant - accused in the commission of crime,
the present application deserves to be rejected.
8. The Court has also gone through the decisions
relied upon by the learned advocate for the
applicant. There cannot be any dispute with regard
to the ratio laid down in the same. However, in
the facts and circumstances of the case on hand
and this being discretionary relief, which
requires to be granted judiciously, the said
decision would be of no help to the present
applicant at this juncture.
9. At this stage, I would like to put reliance upon
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav Vs. CBI
Through its Director, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 70,
wherein, the Apex Court has laid down that, while
considering an application for regular bail, the
Courts shall have to take into consideration, the
following aspects,
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of
punishment in case of conviction and the
nature of supporting evidence;
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the
witness or apprehension of threat to the
complainant;
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in
support of the charge;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17168/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2024
undefined
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court, further, observed at
Paragraphs-10 and 16 thus;
"10. In our opinion none of the aforesaid
decisions can be said to have laid down any
absolute and unconditional rule about when
bail should be granted by the Court and when
it should not. It all depends on the facts
and circumstances of each case and it cannot
be said there is any absolute rule that
because a long period of imprisonment has
expired bail must necessarily be granted.
16. We are of the opinion that while it is true
that Article 21 is of great importance
because it enshrines the fundamental right to
individual liberty, but at the same time a
balance has to be struck between the right to
individual liberty and the interest of
society. No right can be absolute, and
reasonable restrictions can be placed on
them. While it is true that one of the
considerations in deciding whether to grant
bail to an accused or not is whether he has
been in jail for a long time, the Court has
also to take into consideration other facts
and circumstances, such as the interest of
the society."
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court has in a decision in case
of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterjee &
Anr., reported in (2010) 14 SCC 496 has made
observation as under,
"9. It is well settled that, among other
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17168/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2024
undefined
circumstances, the factors to be borne in
mind while considering an application for
bail are:
"(i) whether there is any prima facie or
reasonable ground to believe that the
accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii)severity of the punishment in the event
of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or
fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position
and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being
repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being
thwarted by grant of bail."
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court has in a decision in case
of Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr.,
reported in (2020) 2 SCC 118, it has been held
that:-
"12. The determination of whether a case is fit
for the grant of bail involves the balancing
of numerous factors, among which the nature
of the offence, the severity of the
punishment and a prima facie view of the
involvement of the accused are important. No
straitjacket formula exists for courts to
assess an application for the grant or
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17168/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2024
undefined
rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing
whether a case is fit for the grant of bail,
the court is not required to enter into a
detailed analysis of the evidence on record
to establish beyond reasonable doubt the
commission of the crime by the accused."
13. From the aforesaid discussion, it appears that as
per the prosecution case, the applicant is
involved in the serious offence and taking into
consideration the complicity of the applicant,
there being apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced, severity of punishment as drawn from
the nature and gravity of the accusations, after
taking due consideration of the submissions of the
parties, and the settled case law in various
judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and
various Hon'ble High Courts, without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the
opinion that it is not a fit case for bail.
14. Accordingly, the present application is rejected.
Rule is discharged.
15. Needless to say that observations made herein
above are confined to decision of the present bail
application.
Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.)
Gautam
