JAGDISH @ BAKABHAI PRAHLADBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Rafik Lokhandwala for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi for the respondent-State.

(2.) By way of this application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant prays for being released on anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 11206073201134 of 2020 registered with Vadnagar Police Station, District Mahesana on 24/10/2020 for offences punishable under Ss. 302, 394, 325, 201, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Ss. 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and Sec. 25 (1B)(a) of the Arms Act.

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr. Lokhandwala for the applicant would submit that undoubtedly the FIR, alleges commission of a very serious offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the IPC, but at the same time, from an overall appreciation of the facts, it would be appear that the applicant did not have any role whatsoever to paly in the offence concerned. Learned Advocate would submit that the FIR had been preferred, alleging commission of offence against unknown persons and whereas later on, the Investigating Officer, had arrested three persons in connection with the said offence. Learned Advocate would submit that at the time of arrest of the three persons, the Investigating Officer had recovered three country made pistols, one each, from each of the accused and whereas it is submitted that upon inquiry from the said accused, the said accused had revealed the name of the present applicant as being the person, who had supplied the country made pistol to the accused persons. It would also be pertinent to note here that the present applicant was a distant relative of one of the persons who had been arrested in connection with the present FIR. Learned Advocate Mr. Lokhandwala would submit that as such, in connection with recovery of country made pistols, a separate FIR had been lodged against the three persons, who had allegedly committed the offence of murder and against the present applicant, more particularly under the provisions of Arms Act. Learned Advocate would submit that the present applicant had been arrested in connection with the said offence and wheres the present appliant was released on regular bail by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Learned Advocate would further submit that the present applicant is sought to be arrested in connection with the present FIR, more particularly only on the allegation that the other accused, had caused death of the deceased, by assaulting the deceased with various weapons including the country made pistols which were allegedly supplied by the present applicant. Learned Advocate would submit that apart from such an allegation, there not being any other role being attributed to the present applicant, the present applicant could not have, in any manner, stated to be involved in the principal offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the IPC and whereas it is requested that this Court may release the present applicant on anticipatory bail.