IMARAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli on behalf of the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mitesh Amin with learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval on behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr. Vijay Patel on behalf of the first informant.

(2.) By way of this Appeal filed under Sec. 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection with F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. 11184002220140 of 2022 registered with Chhota Udaipur Police Station, on 15/4/2022 for offences punishable under Ss. 298 and 153(A) of the Indian Penal Code and for the alleged offences punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 149, 153 , 323, 324, 294(b), 120B, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3(1) , 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a)) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, sec. 51(b) of Disaster Management Act, sec. 3 of the Epidemic Disease Act and under Sec. 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. While the affidavit of the Investigating Officer before learned Sessions Court reflects that three antecedents against the present appellant and whereas in so far as one antecedent is for offence punishable under Sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code registered in the year 2014 and the other two offences registered in the year 2021 are under the Prevention of Gambling Act .

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr. A.M. Dagli on behalf of the appellant would submit that while the present appellant having been named as accused, being present at the site of the incident, being part of the unlawful assembly, more particularly having stick in his hand but neither in the FIR nor in the charge sheet any specific role is attributed to the present appellant and whereas it is further submitted that considering the injuries sustained by the witness concerned, more particularly since offence punishable under Ss. 323 and 324 have been alleged, and also considering the fact that the present appellant are in custody since 30/1/2022, it is requested that the present appellant may be released on regular bail, more particularly learned advocate Mr Dagli submitting that the appellant undertake to abide by any stringent conditions being imposed by this Court for being released on regular bail.