STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PRADYUMANSINH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been filed for quashing and setting aside the order dtd. 10/3/2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajula, District Amreli in Criminal Misc. Application No.34 of 2021 granting the regular bail granted to the respondent.

(2.) The first informant has filed the F.I.R. at Rajula Police Station, District Amreli being C.R.No.11193050201769 of 2020 on 5/11/2020 for the offences punishable under Ss. 302 , 307 , 324 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sec. 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. As per the case of the first informant, the respondent had inflicted serious injuries on the deceased-Subhodip Bhadra. The other injured witness namely, Ankit Sanodiya and Safardarkhan Nizamudding had tried to stop further assault but at the same time, the respondent-accused had also seriously injured them. The respondent-accused had inflicted injuries on the ground that there were some road wages and for that the respondent- accused had initially threatened and within half an hour, the respondent had brought the dagger and inflicted injuries on the body of the deceased.

(3.) Learned APP Mr.Dabhi has submitted that the Investigating Officer has categorically stated in the affidavit that there are two other body related offences registered against the respondent-accused at the same Police Station vide (i) C.R.No.I-77 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Ss. 523 , 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sec. 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and (ii) C.R.No.I-103 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Ss. 324 , 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sec. 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. He has submitted that there are total six eye witnesses, who have supported the case of the first informant and had given appropriate before the Investigating Officer and had identified the respondent-accused. It is submitted that the trial Court has observed five aspects in paragraph No.4 of the impugned order, while allowing the application of the respondent- accused i.e. (i) economical condition of the respondent's family (ii) detention of the respondent-accused could be considered as a pre- trial punishment, (iii) the respondent-accused is suffering from illness, (iv) the respondent- accused is a local resident of Amreli District and (iv) the respondent-accused has assured that he will not tamper the evidences of the witnesses during the trial. It is submitted that though everything has been produced before the District Court, there are no observations with regard to six eye-witnesses, including three injured witnesses, clothes of the respondent-accused, which were recovered with blood stains at the time of arrest and antecedents of the respondent. It is submitted that there are sufficient evidences, which clearly show the involvement of the respondent-accused, which are ignored by the trial Court. Thus, he has submitted that the present application may be allowed.