RAMLOTAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Kishan Prajapati for learned Advocate Mr. Kishan H. Daiya for the appellant and learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval for the respondent-State and learned Advocate Mr. Hardik A. Dave for the respondent no. 2.

(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. being C. R. No. I-208 of 2019 registered with Dindoli Police Station, Dist. Surat for offences punishable under Ss. 302 , 364 , 365 , 342 , 143 , 147 , 149 , 120(b) , 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code , and under Sec. 3(2)(5) , 3(2)(5a) and 3(2)(6) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 and under Sec. 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

(3.) At the outset, learned Advocate Mr. Prajapati draws the attention of this Court to an order passed by learned Co-ordinate Bench dtd. 26/6/2020 in Criminal Appeal No. 653 of 2020 whereby learned Co- ordinate Bench had permitted the present applicant to move an application for regular bail after some time. Learned Advocate Mr. Prajapati would submit that the said order being passed in the month of June 2020, since the trial had not proceeded any further thereafter except for framing of charge, after approximately 18 months, the present applicant has preferred the present appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Prajapati would submit that while the present applicant, may have been present with the other accused, prima facie from the charge sheet it does not appear that the present applicant had taken part in the main offence, i.e. of murdering one Ramfer Yadav, i.e. the deceased. Learned Advocate Mr. Prajapati would further submit that having regard to the fact that the present applicant is in custody since 22/12/2019 and further considering the age of the applicant at the relevant point of time that was of 22 years and further considering that at the relevant point of time there was no antecedent against the present applicant and considering the limited role, this Court may consider releasing the present applicant on regular bail. Learned Advocate Mr. Prajapati would further submit that since the present applicant is a native of District Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh to allay any apprehension that the applicant would not attend the trial, the applicant is ready and willing to voluntarily deposit an amount of Rs.50,000.00 before the learned Sessions Court at the time of release on regular bail and whereas, any other stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court would be complied by the present applicant.