DHARMESHBHAI PRABHATBHAI DHRANGA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.I-184 of 2019 registered with B-Division Police Station, Rajkot City for offences punishable under sections 302 , 323 , 504 and 120B of IPC and section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act.

(2.) Mr. K.S. Chandrani, learned advocate for the applicant, referred to the complaint, the charge-sheet papers as also the papers of the draft charge-sheet, to submit that the prosecution has come up with inconsistent version regarding the role played by the applicant herein. It was submitted that the complainant had produced the draft charge-sheet in the application filed for cancellation of bail being Criminal Misc. Application No.7036/2020 with 7387/2020, wherein the applicant herein was shown as accused No.6 and it was the case of the prosecution that as per column No.5, accused No.5 had caught hold of the complainant and accused No.2 had inflicted knife blows. The allegation against accused Nos.3 to 6 is of assaulting the deceased with stick and by taking all the facts into consideration, accused No.5 has been granted bail. Thus, by invoking the principle of parity, it was prayed that the present applicant may be released on bail.

(3.) Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. Virat Popat, learned advocate for the original complainant, submitted that the entire incident was preplanned. The deceased and the complainant were discharging their duties at the RTO office. The complainant and the deceased had insisted for fixation of radium plates on the vehicle, which was refused by the accused persons. However, after some arguments, the accused agreed for the same; but they kept grudge against the deceased and complainant for the same. Thereafter, the accused did reccee and ultimately, executed their plan. Thus, the role played by all the accused should be considered as equal. It was further submitted that during the course of hearing of the said two applications, the entire blame was placed on the applicant in order to protect co-accused Mansukhbhai Keshavbhai Dholaria and thus, the applicant cannot blow hot and cold to defend himself. It was, therefore, prayed that no discretion may be exercised in favour of the applicant.