Gujarat High Court
Shubham Natubhai Solanki vs State Of Gujarat on 23 January, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/886/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
CHARGESHEET) NO. 886 of 2024
==========================================================
SHUBHAM NATUBHAI SOLANKI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
VATSAL S PARIKH(7452) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. L.B.DABHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 23/01/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in
connection with FIR being C.R.NO. 11198006231526 of 2023
registered with Ghogha Road Police Station, Bhavnagar.
2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Vatsal S. Parikh for the
Applicant and learned APP Mr. L.B.Dabhi for the Respondent -
State.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that
the case of the prosecution rests upon the circumstantial
evidence. There is no material whatsoever connecting to
present applicant with the offence in question except the
statement of the co-accused.
3.1 Learned advocate for the applicant has further submitted
that the applicant is not attributed with any overt act in
commission of offence in question nor the applicant has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/886/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2024
undefined
caused any injury to the deceased in the entire incident. There
has been no recovery or discovery of any incriminating
material from the present applicant. He has also submitted
that the the other co-accused persons have been considered
for grant of regular bail by this Court. He, therefore, submitted
to allow the present application and enlarge the present
applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions.
3.2 Learned advocate for the applicant has sought to rely
upon following judgments in support of his submissions:-
(i) Maulana Mohd.Amir Rashadi Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh reported in 2012 (2) SCC 382.
(ii) Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. reported in
2020(1) SCC 648.
4. Learned APP has opposed the present application, inter
alia, contending that the applicant is the person, who had
hatched a conspiracy for commission of the offence in
question. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present
application.
5. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the
material available on record. The FIR in present case has been
lodged by one Sangitaben Ajaybhai Khasiya, who happens to
be sister in law of the deceased. Initially, the FIR was lodged
against two accused persons. However, during the course of
investigation, the involvement of the present applicant had
been disclosed to the effect that it was the present applicant,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/886/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2024
undefined
who had met the other co-accused and hatched the conspiracy
to eliminate the deceased.
6. The co-accused namely Shreyansh had hired two
juveniles in conflict with law for eliminating the deceased. The
present Applicant, as part of the conspiracy hatched by him
along with the other coaccused for eliminating the deceased,
had provided the weapons to the assailants who had actually
killed the deceased.
7. So far as the aspect of grant of regular bail to the co-
accused is concerned, he was found to be not present at the
scene of offence nor any other role appeared to have been
played by the said co-accused, and therefore, this Court has
considered his case for grant of regular bail. So far the role of
present applicant is concerned, from the record, his
involvement in the offence appears to be from the very
inception and it was the present Applicant who along with the
other co-accused had hatched a conspiracy for elimination of
the deceased and, as part of the same, the weapons were
provided by the present Applicant to the juvenile in conflict
with law who had actually assaulted the deceased.
Considering the same, no case is made out to release the
present applicant on bail. Hence, the present application
stands dismissed.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
J.N.W / 45
