BHIKHABHAI PUNIABHAI SANGADA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the matter is taken up for hearing, at the outset, Mr.S.S. Saiyed, learned advocate, after arguing for some time, has requested the Court to permit applicant Nos.1 and 2 to withdraw this application and present application be treated only for applicant No.3 - Samsubhai Puniyabhai Sangada. Accordingly, present application stands disposed of qua applicant Nos.1 and 2 and now, it is restricted to applicant No.3 only.

(2.) 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.11821025200191 of 2020 registered with Katvara Police Station, District - Dahod for offence punishable under section 143 , 144 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 302 , 323 , 324 and 337 of the IPC.

(3.) Mr.S.S. Saiyed, learned advocate for the applicant, has submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and wrongly been arraigned in the prosecution. It has been submitted that entire episode in the form of offence is on account of sudden provocation and there is no intention nor any motive to commit any crime. The applicant, on the contrary, is aged about 48 years and was suffering from heart ailment as it appears from the cause of action. Further, the death has occurred on account of delayed treatment and as such, in the absence of intention or motive to kill, the present applicant may not be allowed to languish in jail. Learned advocate has further submitted that the dispute which has given rise to the alleged incident is of a private nature and there was a free fight. On the contrary, on the side of present applicant also, one person is seriously injured and as such, there are all possibilities that present applicant might have been arraigned without any substance. For substantiating his plea, learned advocate has drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant papers attached to the present application and has submitted that the injuries which are mentioned in Column No.17 of PM Report reflecting on page- 64 are not so serious in nature and if proper treatment would have been meted out, possibly the death might not have occurred. Additionally, by referring to page-67 at bottom, the cause of death which has been mentioned is acute coronary insufficiency as a result of coronary artery disease. Now, this could not have been on the spur of moment. This coronary defect might have been developed during the passage of time prior to the commission of crime and, therefore, it cannot be said that this is a case of Section 302 of the IPC and at the best, it may be a case falling under purview of Section 304 of the IPC. Apart from that, by drawing attention to the observations made in Para.15, a specific contention is raised that at the best, the present applicant has pelted the stones not to the deceased but, upon one of the witnesses and as such, this applicant has not contributed anything to the cause of death of the deceased. Hence, the learned advocate for the applicant has requested the Court to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant.