Gujarat High Court
Jayendrasinh Amarsinh Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat on 23 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8312/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 12/09/2025
Pronounced On : 23/09/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 8312 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
JAYENDRASINH AMARSINH JADEJA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. HARDIK SONI, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of
notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State and
learned advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya waives service of notice
of rule for and on behalf of the original complainant.
2. The present successive application is filed under Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short
"BNSS"), for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.
No.11993011230010 of 2023 registered with the Lakadiya
Police Station, Kachchh (East), Gandhidham for the alleged
offences as mentioned in the FIR.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8312/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
THE FACTUAL PRISM
3. In brief the allegations are that keeping grudge of the
earlier quarrel that had taken place between the accused
persons as named in the FIR and the complainant and other
witnesses with regard to getting the contract of the company,
the accused Nos.1 to 7 upon provocation by the accused Nos.8
and 9, hatched a criminal conspiracy and in order to attain
their common object, formed an unlawful assembly and made
an assault upon the father and uncle of the complainant with
the deadly weapons like wooden log, iron pipe and iron tommy
while they were heading towards Shivlakha from Lakadiya on
bike. It is alleged by the complainant in the complaint that the
accused No.1, dashed his Eon Car bearing registration No.GJ-
12-CD-8342 with their bike with an intention to kill them, due
to which, both of them fell down. It is also alleged that
thereafter, (i) Anilsinh Amarsinh Jadeja, (ii) Jayendrasinh
Amarsinh Jadeja (iii) Vikramsinh Ramji Jadeja (iv) Narendrasinh
Kalubha Jadeja (v) Himmatsinh Rasubha Jadeja (vi) Indrasinh
Karubha Jadeja and (vii) Dashrathsinh Manubha Jadeja got
down from the car with the deadly weapons like wooden log,
iron pipe and iron tommy and, therefore, both the deceased
and the injured witness tried to rush to the nearby agricultural
field. However, all the aforesaid accused persons chased them
and as both of them fell down, all the accused persons,
altogether, started beating them with the respective weapons
in their hands, due to which, the deceased and the witness
sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, the deceased was
taken to the hospital at Lakadiya for treatment. There, the
doctor after giving primary treatment, advised to take the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8312/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
deceased at the hospital at Bhuj for further treatment.
Therefore, they took the deceased at Sterling Hospital,
Gandhidham where the deceased succumbed to the injuries
sustained by him on the different parts of the body. Hence, the
impugned FIR.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT:
4. Learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli appearing for the
applicant has submitted that applicant-accused was arrested
on 25.12.2023 and since then he is in jail. Learned advocate
Mr. Dagli has also submitted that the investigation has already
been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed. It is
further submitted that the first information report has been
filed against total nine persons wherein the present applicant-
accused has been shown as accused No.2. Learned advocate
Mr. Dagli has also submitted that out of the nine accused
persons, the accused Nos.8 and 9 have already been enlarged
on anticipatory bail by the trial court. It is further submitted
that the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon three basic
witnesses viz. the injured eye-witness and other two persons
who were available at the place of incident. Learned advocate
Mr. Dagli has submitted that if the Hon'ble Court would go
through the contents of the statements of the other two
witnesses, it is found out that both these two witnesses have
stated in their statements that they have seen the applicant-
accused with a weapon in his hand, however, they have not
stated anything about what had actually transpired at the time
of commission of the offence. Not only that, even the injured
eye-witness who was very much available along with the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8312/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
deceased has also stated that the applicant-accused was also
present along with the other co-accused at the time of the
alleged incident. The said witness has not stated anything
about the individual role played by each accused at the time of
commission of the offence. It is also submitted that the only
allegation against the present applicant is that he was present
at the scene of offence along with the other co-accused, and
except this, no other allegations have been levelled against
the applicant-accused. Even the car allegedly used in the
commission of crime does not found to be stained with human
blood. Even there is no recovery or discovery of any
incriminating material at the instance of the applicant-accused.
It is further submitted that there is no independent eye-witness
to the said incident except the injured witness who happens to
be the relative of the deceased. Learned advocate Mr. Dagli
has further submitted that even at the time of the alleged
incident, the present applicant was not available at the scene
of offence, as he was present at the Bank when the allegd
incident took place, which is evident from the statement of one
witness, namely, Nasir Abdulbhai Majothi, which is annexed at
Annexure-D. A representation had also been made by the
cousin brother of the present applicant before the competent
authority, claiming plea of alibi. Over and above the same,
accused Nos.8 and 9, namely, Hanubha Hetubha @ Fauji and
Udesinh Jilubha Jadeja have already been enlarged on
anticipatory bail by the trial court and, therefore, on the
ground of parity also, the applicant-accused may be enlarged
on bail.
5. In such circumstances referred to above, learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8312/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
advocate Mr. Dagli prays that there being merit in this
application, the same may be allowed and the applicant-
accused may be released on bail on any suitable terms and
conditions.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-STATE:-
6. Learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni appearing on behalf of 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-accused is clearly spelt out from
the charge-sheet papers. Learned APP Mr. Soni has further
submitted that the applicant-accused is a headstrong and
influential person and there are in all total five offences have
been registered against the applicant-accused, wherein some
offences are body related offences and if the applicant-accused
is released on bail, there are all possible chances that he may
try to tamper with the evidence as well as may give threat or
hamper with the prosecution witnesses. Learned APP Mr. Soni
has submitted that therefore considering the role attributed to
the applicant-accused, this is a fit case wherein discretionary
power of this Court is not required to be exercised in favour of
the applicant-accused.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:-
7. Learned advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya appearing on
behalf of the original complainant has also objected the
present bail application and submitted that a detailed affidavit-
in-reply has been filed by the complainant opposing the bail
application. It is further submitted that the injured witness is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8312/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
the eye-witness who had witness the said incident. It is also
submitted that the present applicant-accused is a co-
conspirator who has actively participated in the commission of
crime. Learned advocate Mr. Gondaliya has further submitted
that it is found out from the police papers that on the fateful
day, the applicant-accused was seen by the other two
witnesses along with the deadly weapons. Learned advocate
Mr. Gondaliya has submitted that the injured eye-witness, in
his statement, has very categorically stated that all the
accused persons dashed the car with the motorcycle of the
deceased and the injured witness with an intention to kill
them. Not only that, thereafter, all the accused persons came
out from the car with deadly weapons in their hands and in
the presence of the injured witness, they have randomly
inflicted blows on the different parts of the body of the
deceased and the said fact is also corroborated with the
medical evidence in the form of postmortem note that the
deceased has sustained multiple injuries. Learned advocate
Mr. Gondaliya has further submitted that during the course of
investigation, the weapons used in the commission of the
crime have also been recovered/discovered by the
Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that the present
applicant-accused is involved in the present offence from the
very inception. All the accused persons, in collusion with each
other, hatched a criminal conspiracy to eliminate the deceased
and as a part of the said conspiracy, they made an unlawful
assembly in which different tasks were assigned to each
individual. Thereafter, with an intention to fulfill their common
objection, they all gathered at a particular place with deadly
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8312/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
weapons and made an assault upon the deceased and the
injured victim in a broad daylight which was witnessed by two
independent witnesses. The statements of those two witnesses
have also been recorded wherein they have very categorically
stated that they have seen all the accused persons coming out
from the agricultural field with deadly weapons in their hands.
Learned advocate Mr. Gondaliya has further submitted that all
the accused persons, altogether, rained blows indiscriminately
on the body of the deceased and, therefore, it is practically
impossible for the injured eye-witness to describe the
individual role of each and every accused. Learned advocate
Mr. Gondaliya has submitted that Section 149 of the IPC
defines that if an offence is committed by any member of an
unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that
assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to
be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every
person, who at the time of the committing of that offence, is a
member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.
Learned advocate Mr. Gondaliya has also submitted that the
present applicant remained absconded four about a year, and
therefore, warrant under Section 70 of the Cr.P.C. also came to
be issued against him, and after the issuance of Section 70
warrant, the investigating officer could be able to arrest the
applicant. Moreover, the other co-accused, namely,
Dashrathsinh Manubha Jadeja has jumped the temporary bail
and is absconding. He has also submitted that so far as the
plea of alibi is concerned, the Bank which the applicant visited
is just 1.5 kilometer away, and the timing of the CCTV footages
are not matched with the timing of the commission of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8312/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
offence. Further, the location of the mobile of the applicant
was also found nearby to the place of occurrence. Thus, the
present applicant, being a habitual offender, is playing smartly
to escape from the clutches of law by crating the plea of alibi.
He has also submitted that the applicant has been named in
the FIR, and in the statements of the witnesses also, his name
is coming out. Moreover, the present applicant and the
complainant are residing in the same vicinity, and as such,
there are all chances of threatening the witnesses and
tampering with the evidence. Learned advocate Mr. Gondaliya
has further submitted that parity will not be applicable as the
role attributed to the applicant is different than the role
attributed to the accused who have been enlarged on bail.
Moreover, after being released on bail, the co-accused have
misused the liberty and made an attack upon the witness, for
which, an FIR is also filed. He has also submitted that the trial
has already been started and two doctor witnesses have
already been examined, and now the injured witness and other
witnesses are to be examined, and as such, the trial is at a
crucial stage. Learned advocate Mr. Gondaliya has submitted
that the bail application of co-accused, namely, Narendrasinh
Kalubha Jadeja has already been rejected by this very Court.
Moreover, this very Court also declined to entertain the bail
application filed by another co-accused, namely, Dashrathsinh
Manubha Jadeja, and therefore, the same came to be
withdrawn.
8. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned
advocate Mr. Gondaliya prays that there being no merit in the
present application, the same may be rejected and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8312/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
applicant-accused may not be enlarged on bail.
ANALYSIS
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions of learned counsel for the applicant-accused,
respondent No.1-State and the respondent No. 2-original
complainant and have carefully examined the record.
10. This Court is called upon to decide as to whether the
discretion should be exercised in favour of the applicant-
accused conferred under Section 483 of the BNSS in the given
facts of the case.
11. It cannot be gainsaid that the power to grant bail under
Section 483 BNSS. is wide ranging. Nonetheless, it has been
consistently emphasized in several judicial verdicts that
exercise of the said discretionary powers vested in the Court
when considering grant of bail, ought to be in a judicious
manner and not as a matter of course. In Ram Govind
Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and others, (2002) 3 SCC 598, a
Division Bench of the Supreme Court had laid down the
following guiding principles while exercising the power to grant
bail:-
"3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order -
but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a
judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for
bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained.
Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is
dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being
dealt with by the court and facts, however, do always
vary from case to case...... The nature of the offence is
one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail -
more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8312/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the
factual matrix of the matter.
4. Apart from the above, certain other which may be
attributed to be relevant considerations may also be
noticed at this juncture, though however, the same are
only illustrative and not exhaustive, neither there can be
any. The consideration being:
(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not
only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the
punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the
nature of evidence in support of the accusations.
(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being
tampered with or the apprehension of there being a
threat for the complainant should also weigh with the
court in the matter of grant of bail.
(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence
establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie
satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.
(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered
and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have
to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the
event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of
the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the
accused is entitled to an order of bail."
12. I hasten to add that there can be several other relevant
factors which, depending upon the peculiar facts and
circumstances of a case, would be required to be kept in mind
while granting or refusing bail to an accused. It may be difficult
to illustrate all such circumstances, for there cannot be any
straight jacket formula for exercising the discretionary
jurisdiction vested in a Court under Sections 482 and 483
respectively of the BNSS, as the case may be.
13. I am of the view that in the case on hand, several
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8312/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
important factors ought to have been kept in mind while
considering the prayer of the applicant-accused for his
enlargement on regular bail. The murder of the father of the
complainant took place in broad day light. The occurrence has
been witnessed by the injured victim and two more
independent witnesses. It was apparently a case of some
earlier dispute that had taken place between the deceased and
the accused persons. There is material to indicate the motive
behind the commission of gruesome murder of the father of
the complainant. It appears from the materials on record that
the applicant-accused has a chequered criminal record.
14. The other important factor is that the injured victim,
namely, Himamtsinh Chamansinh Rathod is the eye witnesses.
He is yet to depose as a prosecution witness. Though not as a
general rule but it is expedient and is always in the interest of
criminal justice system that the prayer for bail is considered
after ensuring that the statements of the vital witnesses stand
recorded and there is no likelihood of influencing or tampering
their evidence. This Court has also taken note of the fact that
the said eye-witness has narrated that the applicant-accused
was very much present at the time of the incident and the
manner in which accused persons inflicted the injuries. The
complainant also made specific averments in the complaint
with regard to inflicting of injuries which he came to know
about the incident from eye-witness Himmatsinh Chamansinh
Rathod. Except the eye-witness Himmatsinh Chamansinh
Rathod, there are two other independent witnesses whose
statements have been recorded by the Investigating Officer
during the course of investigation wherein they have very
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8312/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
categorically stated that they had seen the present applicant-
accused along with the other co-accused persons coming out
from the agricultural field with the deadly weapons in their
hands where the unfortunate incident had taken place. Not
only that, the present applicant accused played very smartly,
and immediately after the occurrence of the incident, went to
the nearby Bank to create an evidence of alibi that he was
present at the Bank when the alleged incident took place,
however, the timing of the presence of the applicant at the
Bank and the occurrence of the incident are varied, and the
Bank where the applicant is claiming to be present when the
incident was occurred, was hardly 1.5 km away from the place
of occurrence. Apart from that the material available on record
clearly discloses that this applicant was very much present at
the time of committing the murder. The contention that there
is no any overt act and also the applicant-accused was not
present at the place of occurrence cannot be accepted, as in
the statements of the witnesses, as referred to above, it is
clearly stated by them that they had seen the applicant-
accused along with the other co-accused with the weapons in
their hands coming out from the agricultural field.
15. The Apex Court in the case of KUMER SINGH VS STATE
OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER reported in 2021 CRL.L.J.
4244 held that the individual role of the accused is not
required to be considered when they are alleged to have been
part of sharing of common intention. The Court also further
observed that there were 26 injuries found on the dead body of
the deceased and 11 injuries on the injured Vikram Singh by
blunt and sharp weapons. In the case on hand, it has to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8312/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
noted that the eye-witness, namely, Himmatsinh Chamansinh
Rathod was also beaten by the accused persons and in his
presence only all the accused persons randomly inflicted blows
to the deceased and committed the murder and, therefore,
under such circumstances, individual role of each of the
accused cannot be considered at the time of considering the
bail application in an offence punishable under Section 302 of
IPC and more particularly, when they are party for the offence
with Section 149 of IPC.
16. With regard to the parity is concerned, the counsel for
the applicant has submitted that that accused Nos. 8 and 9
have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail and hence, the
present applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of
parity. The Apex Court in the judgment of RAMESH BHAVAN
RATHOD vs VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI MAKWANA (KOLI)
AND ANOTHER reported in (2021) 6 SCC 230 while
considering the bail on the ground of parity of co-accused held
that while applying the principles of parity, the Court cannot
exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider
totality of circumstances before granting bail, parity while
granting bail must focus upon role of accused, and not only on
weapon carried by accused, merely observing that another
accused who was granted bail was armed with similar weapon
is not sufficient to determine whether bail can be granted on
the basis of parity in deciding aspect of parity, role attached to
accused, their position in relation to incident and to victims is
of utmost importance and also held that whether order
granting bail can be relied on as a precedent in a matter for
future adjudication if and when application for bail is moved on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8312/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
the ground of parity on behalf of another accused. In the event
that parity is claimed in such case thereafter, it is for that
Court before whom parity is claimed to determine whether
case for grant of bail on the grounds of parity is made out. In
the case on hand, it is very specific that this applicant is found
to be very much available at the place of occurrence while
committing the murder. All the accused persons joined
together and went in a vehicle and dashed the same with the
motorbike of the deceased and the eye-witness, and when
they tried to run away to save themselves, all the accused
persons chased them and inflicted blows with the weapons in
their hands. The role attributed to the co-accused who have
been enlarged on bail is that they have aided and instigated
the other accused persons to commit the murder. Therefore,
the role of the applicant-accused is quite distinct and different
than the role of the co-accused who have been enlarged on
bail.
17. It is not necessary that every person constituting an
unlawful assembly must play an active role for establishing the
guilt against him with the aid of Section 149 of IPC. What has
to be established by the prosecution is that a person has to be
a member of an unlawful assembly, i.e. he has to be one of the
persons constituting the assembly and that he had entertained
the common object along with the other members of the
assembly, as defined under Section 141 of IPC."
18. It is equally well-settled that where a crowd of assailants
who are members of an unlawful assembly proceeds to commit
an offence in pursuance of common object of the unlawful
assembly, it is often not possible for witnesses to describe
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8312/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
accurately the part played by each one of the assailants.
Besides, if a large crowd of persons armed with weapons
assaults a victim, it is not necessary that all of them must take
part in the actual assault. Even in absence of actual assault, all
members of unlawful assembly may be held vicariously liable
for the acts of others provided there was common object to
commit a crime. Appreciation of evidence in such a complex
situation is indeed a difficult task, but courts exercising powers
in administering criminal justice have to do their best in
dealing with such cases and it is expected of them to discharge
their duty to sift the evidence carefully and to decide which
part of it is true and which is not [See Masalti v. State of U.P.,
(1964) 8 SCR 133].
19. From the materials placed on record, it is quite vivid that
the applicant-accused is a history-sheeter and is involved in
heinous offences. Having stated the facts and noting the
nature of involvement of the accused in the crimes in question,
there can be no scintilla of doubt to name him a "history-
sheeter". The question, therefore, arises whether in these
circumstances, should the High Court enlarge him on bail on
the foundation of parity.
20. In Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002) 3
SCC 598, it has been clearly laid down that the grant of bail
though involves exercise of discretionary power of the Court,
such exercise of discretion has to be made in a judicious
manner and not as a matter of course. The heinous nature of
crimes warrants more caution as there is a greater chance of
rejection of bail though, however, dependent on the factual
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8312/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
matrix of the matter. In the said case, reference was made
to Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280 and
thereafter the court proceeded to state the following
principles:-
"(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not
only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the
punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the
nature of evidence in support of the accusations.
(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being
tampered with or the apprehension of there being a
threat for the complainant should also weigh with the
court in the matter of grant of bail.
(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence
establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie
satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.
(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered
and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have
to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the
event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of
the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the
accused is entitled to an order of bail."
21. It is a well settled principle of law that while dealing with
an application for grant of bail, it is the duty of the Court to
take into consideration certain factors and they basically are,
(i) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in
cases of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, (ii)
reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses for
apprehension of threat to the complainant, and (iii) Prima facie
satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. [See Chaman
Lal v. State of U.P.,(2004) 7 SCC 525]
22. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14
SCC 496 while dealing with the court's role to interfere with
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8312/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
the power of the High Court to grant bail to the accused, the
Supreme Court observed that it is to be seen that the High
Court has exercised this discretion judiciously, cautiously and
strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in
catena of judgments on that point. The Court proceeded to
enumerate the factors:-
"9. ... among other circumstances, the factors [which are]
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."
23. For the foregoing reasons, I am not inclined to exercise
my discretion in favour of the applicant-accused.
Consequently, the present application fails and is hereby
rejected. Rule is discharged.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
VAHID
