SIDDHARTH ABHERAMBHAI JOSHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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. I-159 of 2015 registered with Tharad Police Station, Banaskantha for offences punishable under Ss. 325 , 323 , 504 , 506(2) and 114 etc. of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sec. 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989.

(2.) Heard Mr.Samir Mansuri, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Ms.C.M. Shah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State and Mr.Luv S. Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 - original complainant.

(3.) Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence but wrongly roped in the alleged crime. He submitted that the appellant had preferred Regular Bail application before the J.M.F.C., Tharad before filing of charge- sheet, which came to be allowed vide order dtd. 9/12/2015. He submitted that thereafter, the case was transferred from one court to another and because of that, he did not remain present before the concerned Court. Therefore, non-bailable warrant came to be issued against the present appellant. The said warrant came to be cancelled by the learned Trial Court after hearing the appellant. However, once again the appellant did not remain present before the concerned Court and he was arrested for the breach of that condition of remaining present. Therefore, the appellant was again came to be arrested and at present he is behind the bars. He submitted that the appellant was regularly attending the Court till 2017, but thereafter, being doing a private service, the employer was very rigid to grant leave and therefore, was unable to attend the Court. He submitted that under the fear to loss the job, he was unable to attend the Court in absence of leave granted by the employer. He further submitted that the appellant now assures to remain present before the Court as and when required. He submitted that this Court may release the present appellant on regular bail subject to any stringent conditions as may be imposed by this Court.