CHANDUBHAI MANEKLAL DUBANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R.J.Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned APP for the respondent - State and Mr. Digant Popat, learned counsel appearing for the original complainant through Video Conferencing.

(2.) The instant bail application is directed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with an offence being C.R.No.I-11191040200221 of 2020 registered with Sardarnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad City, for the offence punishable under Sections 302 , 324 , 114 , 120-B , 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 135(1) of the GP Act.

(3.) Mr. R.J.Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant submits that, the applicant is not named in the FIR and there is no any prima facie evidence for the alleged commission of offence so far present applicant is concerned. The co-accused viz. Mukesh Bhil has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 05.08.2020 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 10642 of 2020 and considering the role of the co- accused and the role attributable to the present applicant are similar in nature. Therefore, the benefit of parity enlarging the present applicant on regular bail may be given. He further submits that, at the most, Section 201 of IPC has been attracted so far the role attributable to the present applicant in the commission of crime. It is further submitted that, after completion of investigation, charge-sheet is already filed and there is no question of tampering the evidence and therefore also, no purpose would be served if the applicant is kept in custody. It is further submitted that, looking to the present pandemic situation, the trial would not complete in near future.