JIVARAMBHAI DALRAMBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 308 of 2021 before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Banaskantha at Tharad u/s. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requesting to enlarge the appellant on regular bail on account of offence being registered vide C.R. No.11195050211013 of 2021 registered with Tharad Police Station, Dist: Banaskantha for the offence punishable u/s. 354(A), 447, 342, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s. 3(1) (w)(i), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short "the Atrocities Act"), the learned Additional District Judge, Banaskantha at Tharad rejected the said application on 29/10/2021.

(2.) Heard learned advocate for the appellant, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 and learned APP for the respondent-State.

(3.) Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. That, looking to the FIR and allegations made therein, no prima facie offence has been made out against him. That, on plain reading of the FIR, it is manifest that none of the ingredients of the provisions of the IPC and Atrocities Act are satisfied and therefore, no prima facie case is made out against the appellant. That, the allegations made in the FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can even reach to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the appellant. That, the charge sheet has been filed and no possibility of tampering with evidence. That, if the allegations made in the FIR are taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie, they do not constitute any offence or make out a case against the appellant. That, the applicant has not participated in occurrence of the incident. That, the version as alleged by the complainant is highly doubtful and there are serious doubts with regard to the credibility of the version of the complainant. That, the appellant is in judicial custody since more than 5 months and if he is released on bail, he will not contact the respondent no.2 by any manner such a mobile phone, personal visit or any direct or indirect way and will not harass the respondent no.2 as well as he will remain out of village Tharad as the court may deem it fit. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellant to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of rejecting the prayer of bail by the appellant and release the appellant on bail.