BHAVANSINH @ BHOTU NARENDRASINH MORI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in connection with the FIR being CR No.11211056200413/2020 registered with Surendranagar City B Division Police Station, District Surendrangar for the offence punishable under Sections 323 , 325 , 329 , 504 , 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

(2.) Heard Mr.Vicky B. Mehta, learned advocate for the applicants, Mr. Maulik Soni, learned advocate for the complainant and Ms. Nisha Thakor, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State, through video conference.

(3.) Mr.Vicky Mehta, learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the present incident which took place on 29.6.2020, pertains to a non-payment of dues to the extent of Rs.7 lakhs. It is submitted that so far as the offence under section 329 is concerned, the same is not attracted inasmuch as, it provides that whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer or from any person interested in the sufferer any property or valuable security, or of constraining the sufferer or any person interested in such sufferer to do anything that is illegal or which may facilitate the commission of an offence. In the present case, it is clear that neither property nor valuable security is involved. It is submitted that so far as offences under Sections 323 and 325 are concerned, they are bailable offence. Similarly, Section 506 is attracted, only when there is a threat extended. So far as the second part of Section 506 is concerned, for attracting the said offence there has to be threat to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years. It is submitted that bare perusal of the contents of the first information report clearly suggests that the averments are vague and too general in nature. It is submitted that the dispute is more of a private dispute between the two parties. Moreover, the complainant, has sustained the injury and the injury certificate indicates that the complainant has remained as an indoor patient for one day and immediately on second day was discharged from the hospital.