RANJANBEN MANUBHAI PARMAR 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. 252 of 2009 registered with Odhav police station, Ahmedabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 304, 328 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["IPC" for short].

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. R.J. Goswami for the applicant submitted that the applicant is totally innocent and she has been falsely implicated in the commission of offence. As per the prosecution case, conspiracy was hatched by original accused nos. 1 to 5 and they obtained methyl alcohol and prepared country made liquor which was distributed to other accused who sold it to the consumers and after consuming the said country made liquor, 149 persons died and about 170 persons had fallen ill. It is submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR nor any allegation is made against her in the FIR. She is not even remotely connected with the alleged offence. The applicant is arrested in connection with statements of witnesses and statements of those witnesses cannot be believed, because, as per their say, they came to know from other persons that the applicant along with other accused was selling country made liquor and they had not seen the applicant selling country made liquor as alleged in the FIR. The person, namely, Gopal Babu who had consumed the liquor, became unconscious and had taken treatment from the hospital. He has not given history with regard to purchase of country made liquor. There is no direct or indirect evidence to connect the present applicant in the commission of crime and, therefore, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

(3.) Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General appearing with Mr. J.M. Panchal, Special Public Prosecutor, representing the opponent State, submitted that for the purpose of facilitating the work of the Court, detailed Chart is prepared. Considering the role of the present applicant who is working hand in glove with the other accused and the fact that she has committed heinous crime punishable under Sections 304, 328 and 114 of IPC, no discretionary relief be granted to the applicant. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that on perusal of statements of witnesses such as statement dated 26.7.2009 given by Gopalbhai Babubhai Pillai, statements dated 10.7.09 and 24.7.09 given by Rameshbhai Umedbhai Makwana, statement dated 24.7.09 given by Baluji Ratuji Rathod etc. as well as panchnama which is produced along with case papers and mobile phone which was used by the applicant and the talk that the applicant had with other accused, makes it clear that the present applicant is involved in serious offence punishable under Sections 304, 328 and 114 of IPC. Learned Additional Advocate General has also placed reliance on the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory in support of the submission that the liquor was found to contain methanol which is hazardous to the health of a person who consumes it. Thus, considering the role attributed to the applicant and the manner in which the offence is committed by her in tandem with other accused and seriousness as well as gravity of offence in which the applicant is involved in the offence, no discretionary relief be granted to the applicant as in all, 149 persons have lost their lives and so many families have lost their bread winner in the family. Activities in which the applicant is involved would also have a very adverse or deleterious effect on the Society as a whole and therefore, involvement of the applicant in the commission of offence requires to be viewed very seriously and therefore, the application is meritless and deserves to be dismissed.