GANPATBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is filed by the accused Ganpatbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for regular bail in connection with F.I.R. registered at C.R.No. I - 39 of 2019 with Himmatnagar Rural Police Station, Sabarkantha for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) of the IPC and under Section 3(2), 5 (A) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(2.) Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the main contention of the appellant is that he was named in the FIR and he has been arraigned as accused on the basis of CCTV Footage. He submitted that he has not done any overt­act of beating the deceased. He has also contended that statement of the eye­witnesses and others have not disclosed the name of the present appellant and the averment made therein have named 3 others persons as accused who have beaten the deceased. It is also contended that as soon as he was called by the Police, he surrendered and the Police has not sought his remand and he is in jail since 13.1.2020. He has also contended that he is aged 61 years and has not made any transaction with the deceased and he was not knowing the deceased. He has also contended that the other accused have been released by the co­ordinate bench. He has also contended that the co­accused who have been enlarged by the coordinate bench have beaten the deceased whereas the present Appellant has not given any assault on the body of the deceased. He has stated that he had filed application for enlarging him on bail, which came to be rejected by 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar. He has prayed to set­aside the said order and release him on bail in the line of the bail granted to one Mr. Bharatsinh Vaktusinh Makwana in Criminal Appeal No.2013 of 2019 vide order dated 8.1.2020.

(3.) Heard Mr. Vijay Patel, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Darshan Dave, learned advocate for the appellant and Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned APP for the Respondent State through Video­conferencing. The complainant has already been served but he did not choose to appear.