(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, 120B and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["IPC" for short] and Sections 65[a][b][c][d][e][f], 66[1][b], 67, 67[1][a][b], 68, 72, 75, 81 and 83 of Bombay Prohibition Act ["Prohibition Act" for short].
(2.) Mr. C.B. Raval, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and she has been falsely implicated in the commission of alleged offence. Name of the applicant is not given in the FIR nor role attributed to the applicant has come out even during the course of investigation and, therefore, she deserves to be enlarged on bail. During the course of investigation, statements of Chhabildas and Bansilal Agrawal and his wife were recorded wherein, name of the present applicant has been disclosed. It is submitted that while consuming liquor, no one has lost life and nothing was recovered or discovered from the present applicant during the course of investigation. Thus, considering the role attributed to the applicant and the provisions of Sections 304, 328, 120B and 114 of IPC and Sections 65[a][b][c][d][e][f], 66[1][b], 67, 67[1][a][b], 68, 72, 75, 81 and 83 of Prohibition Act, 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, 120B and 114 of IPC as well as under Sections 65[a][b][c][d][e][f], 66[1][b], 67, 67[1][a][b], 68, 72, 75, 81 and 83 of Prohibition Act, no discretionary relief be granted to the applicant. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that on perusal of statements of witnesses such as statements dated 9.7.09 and 25.7.09 of Chhabildas Bansilal, statement of Hansaben, wife of Chhabildas Agrawal dated 9.7.09, statement of Shobhaben, wife of Somabhai Harjibhai Sindhi dated 23.7.09, statement dated Chandubhai Manilal Chunara dated 23.7.09 etc. as well as panchnama produced along with case papers makes it clear that the present applicant is involved in serious offence punishable under Sections 304, 328, 120B and 114 of IPC and Sections 65[a][b][c][d][e][f], 66[1][b], 67, 67[1][a][b], 68, 72, 75, 81 and 83 of Prohibition Act. 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, 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.