INDAL GANAURI PASVAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr. Manan Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of rule on behalf of the opponent-State.

(2.) The present successive bail application has been filed by the applicant-original accused who was charged with offences punishable under Ss. 302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal code as also under Sec. 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, in connection with FIR being C.R. No. I-111 of 2019 lodged before Morbi Taluka Police Station, Morbi.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Monarch Pandya, appearing for the applicant has submitted that though earlier bail application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 4280 of 2020 after hearing has been disposed of vide order dtd. 6/7/2020, there appears to be change of circumstance and as such, the present application is submitted. The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was not present at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed and on the basis of mere circumstance from the whatsApp chats, conspiracy charge was levelled against the applicant and there is no adequate material available with the prosecution agency even after thorough investigation when the charge sheet came to be filed. It has been submitted that one of the witness during the course of trial Mr. Rakesh Varma who initially saw dead body of the deceased has also not supported the case of the prosecution and looking to the trivial allegations levelled against the applicant, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. It has further been submitted that there is a discrepancy and improbable story involving the present applicant is coming out from the version of co-accused i.e. Kirandevi and further has submitted that looking to the role attributed against the applicant, this is a fit case to consider the release of the applicant. The learned advocate for the applicant has further submitted that though he is hailing from State of Madhya Pradesh, he is in a position to comply with any of the conditions this Court may deem it proper to secure the presence and has further also contended that looking to the discovery panchnama, no trustworthy material is coming out against the applicant and, therefore, also the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail as his question of liberty is at stake. The learned advocate for the applicant has further submitted that even one of the co-accused Kirandevi was also enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 26/12/2019. Hence, the applicant also must be given the same treatment. For the purpose of strengthening the case, the learned advocate for the applicant has relied upon the following three decisions and ultimately requested to enlarge the applicant on bail in connection with the aforesaid offences.