DINESHBHAI TALJABHAI RABARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant for regular bail in connection with an FIR being C.R.No. 11210012200976 of 2020 registered with Chowkbazar Police Station, District: Surat City for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 384, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Learned advocate for the applicant submits that considering the nature of allegations, role attributed to the applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf R/CR.MA/1829/2021 ORDER of the respondent?State and learned advocate for the respondent No.2 have strongly objected the arguments advanced by learned advocate for the applicant and submitted that the applicant has forcefully received Rs.40,000/? out of the demanded extortion on 06.09.2019. That even after receiving the extortion money from the deceased, the applicant did not allow the deceased to open or maintain their ownership shop from the last 17 months. It is further submitted that allegations made in the FIR as well as charge? sheet and contents of the suicide note directly states that the applicant had tortured the deceased to commit suicide and hence constitute a prima facie case against the present applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 384, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that applicant has submitted forged documents before the Court to seek bail and same was taken into consideration by the Court, which makes it clear that the applicant can go to any extent to make their way out and can threaten and intimidate the complainant or his family. That R/CR.MA/1829/2021 ORDER suicide note of the father of the complainant itself the explanatory evidence suggesting the level of torture and force resulted into suicide of the head of the family. That there is successive bail application preferred by the present applicant without any new ground except filing of the charge?sheet. Hence, it was requested by learned APP for the respondent? State as well as learned advocate for the respondent No.2 to dismiss the present application.