PRAVINBHAI KASHIRAM PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present application filed under Section 439(2) and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-original complainant has inter alia payed to quash and set aside the order dated 15th January 2011 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.26 of 2011 and thereby prayed to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No.2 vide order under challenge.

(2.) As per the case of the applicant, the applicant is the complainant in the complaint being C.R. No.I-213 of 2008 registered with Sanand Police Station against the respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 325, 506(1) and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act in connection with the incident which took place on 11th September 2009 in respect of the applicant's land situated at Survey No.166, Village-Nidharad, Taluka-Sanand, District-Ahmedabad. As per the case of the applicant, at a subsequent stage, charge of of the offence punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code have also been added against the accused persons. It is also the case of the applicant that Investigating Agency has also given application to add other Sections including Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The applicant hereby challenges the order dated 15th January 2011 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) granting anticipatory bail to the respondent No.2. The applicant has opposed the said anticipatory bail by filing a detailed reply. It is the case of the applicant that however, without considering the reply filed by the present applicant, investigating papers, various status reports, which shows that the respondent No.2 is absconding and without considering the fact that the respondent No.2 is absconding since 2008 and there is strong prima-facie case against the respondent No.2, the learned trial Judge, considering the irrelevant factors and ignoring the settled principles for grant of anticipatory bail, granted anticipatory bail to the respondent No.2.