VEERABHAI KANJIBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent-State.

(2.) These applications have been preferred under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the first information report being I-C.R. No.11195036200270 of 2020 registered with Pathawada Police Station, District : Banaskantha for the offences punishable under sections 365 , 342 , 325 , 323 , 114 of the Indian Penal Code and section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

(3.) Mr. Virat Popat, learned advocate for the applicants, submitted that the facts in the FIR are concocted and no such incident actually occurred, there are family disputes and the applicants have even made representation before the police apprehending prosecution. Referring to the documents produced by the original-complainant, Mr. Virat Popat, learned advocate for the applicants, stated that section 325 of the Indian Penal Code was ordered to be deleted and sections 394 and 397 was added as per the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dantiwada, which itself shows that later on material improvements have been made in the case of snatching away mobile, which are manufactured to plug in loopholes to show that he could not have contacted the people through his mobile in the case of allegation of kidnapping. Mr. Virat Popat, further submitted that it is alleged that the victim was taken at six different places and was beaten six times, but the injury is only of fracture on right side lower third fibula, as would be possible that he may have slipped from his two wheeler vehicle, and certain facts have been implanted to falsely implicate the present applicants. It was, therefore, prayed that discretion may be granted in favour of the applicants.