PRAVINBHAI KASHIRAMBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing the present petition under Sections 439 (2) and 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner, original complainant, has prayed to set aside the judgment and order dated 11.11.2009 so as to cancel anticipatory bail granted to respondents Nos.2 and 3.

(2.) Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) has, by the impugned elaborate judgment, adopted the view that, according to the complaint of the present petitioner, registered as C.R.-I No.213 of 2008 on 11.9.2008, offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 325, 427, 506 (2) of IPC and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act were reported and subsequently offences under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC were added by a report; but the present respondents were not found to have been involved in those offences in the chargesheet filed on 26.2.2009. The other accused persons against whom chargesheet is filed have been released on bail and the respondents herein are entitled to the benefit on the ground of parity. Offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC were subsequently added after an order of this Court directing further investigation and during such further investigation, respondents herein have co-operated and at the end their detailed statements have been recorded. After submission of progress report of further investigation, one more accused person has been arrested and Section 120-B of IPC is also added. Addition of other offences after a long time is not natural and custodial interrogation of the opponents was not required, according to the impugned judgment. Taking into account availability of the respondents, evidence of the alleged offences being in the form of documentary evidence and co-operation of the respondents being assured, the impugned order is made with the direction that the respondents shall report to the police station on 17.11.2009, shall be required to seek regular bail within ten days of the execution of the order and the investigating officer shall be entitled to apply for police custody, if required. The important observation in the impugned judgment is that there was hardly any reliable material about active involvement of the respondents in the alleged offences.

(3.) The petitioner, original complainant, has, after elaborately stating the background of the disputes between him and the respondents, submitted that respondent No.2 is a sitting M.L.A. of the ruling party and respondent No.3 is his son, who had tried to grab land of poor farmers and various cases, civil and criminal, were pending against respondent No.2. On 08.9.2008, the petitioner had given an application to police inspector, Sanand, for the threats received by him from respondent No.2, but that complaint was not registered. On 11.9.2008, the complainant and his family members were assaulted by a mob of more than 70 people armed with sticks and other deadly weapons causing serious injuries. As the complaint of that incident was also not registered, the complainant approached this Court and it was only thereafter that F.I.R. was registered wherein two paragraphs of the petitioner's complaint were deleted. Thereafter, investigation into the complaint had had to be transferred from Sanand police station to C.I.D. (Crimes) under orders of this Court. And, during further investigation, more offences had come to light. The petitioner is still not satisfied with the investigation and has serious apprehensions about the witnesses and evidence being tampered. Paras 4 to 6 XXX XXX XXX