SUNITABEN ASHOKBHAI CHUNARA 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 304, 328, 120-B, and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["IPC" for short] as well as under Sections 65[a][b][c][d][e][f], 66[1], 67[1][a][b], 68, 72, 75, 81 and 83 of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 ["Prohibition Act" for short].

(2.) Mr. A.M. Dagli, learned advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and she has not committed any act as alleged in the offence and has been falsely implicated in the case and, therefore, prayer as set out in the application deserves to be granted. The applicant is aged about 60 years. As per the complaint filed by the complainant on 7.7.09, he gave names of two persons, namely, Harish and Pradip. During their interrogation, names of other accused persons have come to the fore. However, name of the present applicant was not given by Harish and Pradip during their interrogation. Thus, considering the aforesaid aspect and the role attributed to the applicant, it can be seen from the FIR at Annexure:A to the application, 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, 120-B and 114 of IPC as well as under Sections 65[a][b][c][d][e][f], 66[1], 67[1][[a][b], 68, 72, 75, 81 and 83 of the Prohibition Act, no discretionary relief be granted to the applicant. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that on perusal of statements of witnesses such as statement of Ajitbhai Jivansing Lodha dated 6.7.09 as well as his dying declaration dated 8.7.09 recorded by Executive Magistrate, statement of Sureshbhai Premjibhai Makwana, statement of Ushaben Rameshbhai Lodha dated 7.7.09 and statements of other witnesses 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, 120-B and 114 of IPC as well as under Sections 65[a][b][c][d][e][f], 66[1], 67[1][a][b], 68, 72, 75, 81 and 83 of the 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.