AKSHITBHAI KADAMKHATN CHHAYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an Application filed by the Applicant (Original Accused No.21) under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for enlarging him on Regular Bail in connection with the FIR No. 11208002200050 of 2020 registered with Aaji Dam Police Station, Rajkot for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 324 , 143 , 147, 148, 149, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act.

(2.) Heard learned Senior advocate Shree N. D. Nanavaty for learned Advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani for the applicant and with prosecution learned Advocate Mr. Vicky Mehta with learned advocate Shree D. N. Ray learned advocate for the complainant and learned APP Mr. H. K. Patel on behalf of the Respondent State of Gujarat through video conference.

(3.) Learned Senior Advocate Shree N. D. Nanavaty on behalf of learned Advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani vehemently argued that in the present case pursuant to the FIR there are in all 21 accused shown for the commission of offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as " IPC "). But pursuant to the contents of the FIR there is not a single evidence, wherein the present accused No. 21 (Akshitbhai K. Chhaya) is shown, therefore, the present applicant neither present at the scene of offence nor even near the scene of offence. There is nothing incriminating material against the present accused in the charge-sheet. Merely, the present applicant ie. Akshitbhai K. Chhaya was only helping hand in the case of civil litigation, which was long drawn pending. Once upon a time, as per the allegations in the FIR, Mr. Akshitbhai K. Chhaya, the present applicant is to meet all such people and as per the allegations Mr. Akshitbhai K. Chhaya uttered words that "let it be killed one of the Darbar since Darbar is not empowered to crush the land through JCB, if the Darbar started JCB then one should be minus' therefore, learned Senior advocate Shree Nanavaty has argued that merely on the basis of such words one cannot be impleaded in the serious offence under Sections 302 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, since there is no actual conspiracy on record.