Gujarat High Court
Narendrasinh Kalubha Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat on 12 June, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8407/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 8407 of 2024
(FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET)
=======================================================
NARENDRASINH KALUBHA JADEJA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR HRIDAY BUCH with MR ANIL H PATEL(7832) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS MONALI BHATT APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 12/06/2024
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.11993011230010/2023 registered with the
Lakadiya Police Station, Kutch for the offence
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307,
302, 120(B) and 209(b) of the Indian Penal Code
and under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.
2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Hriday Buch assisted
by learned advocate, Mr. Anil Patel for the
applicant, learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt for the
respondent - State of Gujarat and learned
advocate, Mr. Pravin Gondaliya for the original
complainant.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that
the so-called incident has occurred on 30.01.2023,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8407/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2024
undefined
for which, FIR has been lodged on the very same
day i.e. on 30.01.2023 and in connection with the
same, the applicant has been arrested on
25.12.2023 and since then, he is in judicial
custody. Learned advocate submitted that FIR is
filed against total 9 accused persons, wherein the
applicant is shown as accused no.4. Learned
advocate submitted that as per the case of the
prosecution, the original accused nos.8 and 9 are
the main accused persons, who have hatched
conspiracy along with other accused persons to
eliminate the deceased and as a part of said
conspiracy, they have acted in a particular
manner. Learned advocate submitted that the
accused nos.8 and 9 have business rivalry with the
deceased and having inimical terms with the
deceased and because of which, they have also
administered threats to the deceased to eliminate
him if he will not act in a particular manner.
Learned advocate, however, submitted that those
accused nos.8 and 9 have already been considered
by this Court. Learned advocate submitted that so
far as the role of the present applicant is
concerned, as per the case of the prosecution,
immediately after the occurrence of the incident,
the injured victim was taken to hospital and at
that point of time, the injured victim had given
history before the doctor concerned about the
commission of crime but if we look at the said
history given by the deceased, it is clear that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8407/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2024
undefined
there is no whisper about the name of the present
applicant - accused and in fact, in the said
history, name and specific role of two accused has
been mentioned. Learned advocate further submitted
that in fact the weapons, details of which are
mentioned in the history by the injured victim,
were not at all used by the accused at the time of
commission of crime, whereas the complaint is
filed by the son of the deceased, who has
disclosed specific name and role of the present
applicant - accused. Learned advocate submitted
that as per the prosecution case, the injured
victim was the eyewitness of the incident, who was
present at the place of occurrence at the time of
incident along with the deceased but no specific
over tact is attributed to the present applicant -
accused. Learned advocate has also read and
referred to postmortem report as well as medical
evidence and submitted that no such serious
injuries have been sustained by the deceased and
the deceased died due to "cardio respiratory
arrest" due to hemorrhagic shock associated with
multiple fracture of both limbs (upper and lower
limb).
4. Learned advocate for the applicant has put
reliance upon following decisions,
(1) the judgment in case of Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra
& Ors., reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694;
(2) the judgment of this Court in case of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8407/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2024
undefined
Vaghari Sanjaybhai Arjanbhai Vs. State of
Gujarat delivered in Criminal Misc.
Application No.13080/2022 on 19.12.2022;
(3) the judgment in case of Umang @ Lallu
Arvindbhai Dantani Vs. State of Gujarat &
Ors., reported in 2019 (0) Supreme (Guj)
141;
(4) the judgment in case of Javid @ Javo
Aamadbhai Sandhvani & Ors. Vs. State of
Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2017 (0)
Supreme (Guj) 1127;
5. Referring to the aforesaid decisions, learned
advocate submitted that as per the settled
proposition of law, at the time of considering the
bail application, the Hon'ble Court must evaluate
the entire available material against the accused
very carefully and the Hon'ble Court must also
clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused
in the case. The cases in which the accused is
implicated with the help of Section 34 and 149 of
the IPC, the Hon'ble Court should consider with
even greater care and caution because over
implication in the cases is a matter of common
knowledge and concern. It is, therefore, urged
that considering the facts of the present case,
the present applicant may be enlarged on bail by
imposing suitable conditions.
6. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8407/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2024
undefined
submitted that the name and role of the present
applicant is clearly spelt out from the body of
the complaint. Learned APP submitted that on the
day of incident, along with the deceased, one
another eyewitness was there and he was also
beaten by the accused persons. Learned APP
submitted that the case of the prosecution is
based upon direct evidence and eyewitness was very
much available at the place of occurrence. Not
only that, immediately after the commission of
crime, the accused were found available at the
place of occurrence along with deadly weapons and
the asid fact is supported by documentary evidecne
available on record. Learned advocate submitted
that not only the eyewitness but also other two
witnesses have seen the accused at the place of
occurrence. Learned APP further submitted that
immediately after the occurrence of the incident,
the injured was shifted to hospital for
preliminary treatment and at that point of time,
the deceased had given history before the Medical
Officer concerned, wherein he has disclosed the
name of two assailants and it is also noted by the
doctor also to the effect that due to serious and
severe injuries, the deceased could not be able to
disclose the name and specific role of other
accused persons. Learned APP has read the FIR as
well as statement of the eyewitness and other
witnesses, wherein they have described the entire
sequence of events of incident in a very
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8407/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2024
undefined
crystallize manner including the name and the
description of the weapons used by the accused.
Learned APP submitted that from the statements of
the witnesses, it is found out that the accused
persons have made attack upon the deceased and the
said fact is also corroborated by the medical
evidence. Learned APP has referred to postmortem
report as well as other medical papers and
submitted that in Column No.17 of the postmortem
report, it is clearly mentioned that the deceased
has sustained number of fracture injuries on
various parts of the body, more particularly, on
both limbs and because of serious and severe
injuries, the deceased died due to cardio
respiratory arrest, therefore, direct involvement
of all accused in the commission of crime is spelt
out from the documents collected by the IO at the
time of submission of chargesheet. Learned APP
further submitted that during the course of
investigation, weapon used by the accused is also
recovered under panchnama at the instance of
accused. Learned APP further submitted that in
fact, the conduct of the applicant is also
required to be taken into consideration at the
time of deciding the present application because
after the incident, the applicant - accused fled
away to evade his arrest and, hence, the
Investigating Officer was constrained to prefer an
application under Section 70 of the CrPC, wherein
the concerned Magistrate issued warrant against
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8407/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2024
undefined
the applicant - accused and after a lapse of 12
months, the applicant was arrested by the IO,
which clearly goes on to show that the applicant
was evading his arrest at the hands of the IO
after the commission of crime. It is, therefore,
urged that considering the above facts of the
case, the present bail application may not be
entering.
7. Learned advocate, Mr. Pravin Gondaliya appearing
for the original complainant has adopted the
submissions canvassed by learned APP appearing for
the respondent - State of Gujarat. Learned
advocate, however, submitted that during the
course of investigation, details of mobile
location were collected by the IO from the
concerned regulatory body, which clearly goes on
to show that the accused persons were present at
the time and place of occurrence. Learned advocate
further submitted that not only that, the injured
witness as well as two other witnesses have seen
the accused persons with deadly weapons at the
place of occurrence. Learned advocate further
submitted that bail application preferred by the
co-accused has not been considered by this Court.
Learned advocate submitted that it is practically
impossible on the part of any person to state as
to which blow is inflicted by whom and where as
all the accused had continously inflicted blows
upon the various parts of the body of the deceased
indiscriminately. It is, therefore, urged that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8407/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2024
undefined
considering the above factual aspects and the role
played by the applicant at the time of commission
of crime, this application may not be
entertained.
8. 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
application.
9. 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.
10. It is found out from the record that because of
the business rivarly between the accused and the
deceased, a conspiracy was hatched and as a part
of conspriacy, deadly attack was made upon the
deceased as laso the injured witness, who was
accompanying the deceased on the date of incident
and the attack was in such a nature causing severe
and serious injuries, the deceased died due to
cardio respiratory attack and the said fact is
supported by the postmortem report, more
particularly, Column No.17 of the postmortem
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8407/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2024
undefined
report. Not only that, the injured witness is the
witness of incident, who has seen the incident and
narrated entire sequence of events of incident in
a very crystallize manner in his statement given
before the IO. Over and above that, there are two
other witnesses, who were present at the place of
occurrence and also seen the accused persons at
the place of occurrence with deadly weaspons.
Further as stated above, immediatley after the
incident, the deceased was shifted to hosiptal for
preliminary treatmnet and at that point of time,
the deceased had given history to the doctor
concerned, who had noted in the case papers, which
clearly goes on to show that the deceased has
given specific name and role of the accused
persons. Further during the course of
investigation, the motive behind commission of
crime is also proved established i.e. business
rivarly. Further as pointed out by learned APP,
the applicant - accused remained absconding for
about 12 months to evade his arrest and
proceedings under Section 70 of the CrPC have been
initiated against him and, thereafter, he was
arrested by the Police. Further the contention of
learned advocate for the applicant with regard to
parity is misconceived because the role attributed
to the present applicant is graver than the co-
accused, who have been considered for bail. I have
also considered the investigation papers including
the statements of the witnesses, which connect the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8407/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2024
undefined
applicant with the commission of crime and also
goes on to show active participation of the
accused in 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.
11. 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
decisions would be of no help to the present
applicant at this juncture.
12. 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;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8407/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2024
undefined
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in
support of the charge;
13. 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."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8407/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2024
undefined
14. 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
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."
15. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8407/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2024
undefined
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 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."
16. From the aforesaid discussion, it appears that as
per the prosecution case, the applicant is
involved in the serious offence of murder 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.
17. Accordingly, the present application is rejected.
Notice is discharged.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8407/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2024
undefined
18. Needless to say that observations made herein
above are confined to decision of the present bail
application.
Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.)
Gautam
