NEEL ASHOK BHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.11191048212301 of 2021 registered with Sarkhej Police Station, District Ahmedabad for the offences under Ss. 365 , 386 , 143 , 144 , 149 , 323 , 324 , 114 , 506(2) and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC ") and under Sec. 135 (1) of the Gujarat Police Act.

(2.) The aforesaid F.I.R came to be registered alleging that on 24/12/2021, the accused had formed an unlawful assembly, and abducted the first informant in an Innova car, and thereafter took him to different places, and when they reached near K.D. Party Plot at Sarkhej, in open space, the applicant inflicted the knife blow on the left hand of the first informant, and verbally and physically abused him. It is further alleged that thereafter, the first informant was taken to his office, and thereby was forcefully constrained to deliver four cheques worth Rs.80,00,000.00 and he had also handed over cash of Rs.3,00,000.00 to the applicant.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.Nair appearing for the applicant has submitted that except the statements of the co-accused, the investigation does not reveal that the present applicant is anyway connected in the offence. In support of his submissions, learned advocate has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Chaudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2022 (1) Crimes 436 (SC). He has submitted that the call records do not in any manner reveal that the applicant was present along with the co-accused father i.e. accused No.1, on the day of the incident. It is further submitted that the first informant has falsely implicated the present applicant in the offence on account of son of the accused No.1. It is also submitted that thus, the custodial interrogation of the present applicant would not be needed as the entire case of the prosecution depends upon the statement of the co-accused.