SOMIBEN MANILAL JAMAJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application preferred by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["Code" for short], seeking regular bail in connection with I-CR No. 161 of 2009 registered with Kagdapith police station, Ahmedabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 307, 328, 272, 273, 201, 217, 221, 109 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["IPC" for short] as well as under Sections 65[a][b][c][d][e][f], 66[1][B], 67[1][c], 68, 72, 75, 81 and 83 of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 ["Prohibition Act" for short].

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. D.D. Nanavati, appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged commission of offence. On bare reading of the FIR as well as charge-sheet, the applicant is not at all involved in the offence alleged against him. The applicant came to be arrested only on the ground of suspicion. It is submitted that as per the FIR, when party took place in the house of the main accused, the applicant was not present and she has not given any poisonous liquid to any of the deceased. Even on perusal of the charge-sheet, it becomes clear that the applicant is not prima facie having any relation with other accused who prepared methyl alcohol. Even when the methyl alcohol was made, the applicant was not present and, therefore, she has been falsely implicated in the commission of offence.

(3.) One witness, namely, Lakhubhai Babubhai Parmar had given a statement that he had purchased country liquor from the applicant at Rs.80/- and when he took the liquor, there was some pain in his head and he was not feeling well. Therefore, he was hospitalized and after taking treatment, he was absolutely out of danger. Except the aforesaid statement, there is nothing on record against the present applicant. Thus, on perusal of the FIR and the role attributed to the applicant as well as statements of witnesses and affidavit filed by Police Inspector Shri M.D. Chaudhari, Crime Branch, the applicant is not having any direct role in the alleged commission of offence and, therefore, she deserves to be enlarged on bail.