STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SALONI HARISHBHAI BAROT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this Criminal Appeal, present appellant has prayed to quash and set aside the order dtd. 1/4/2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.1022 of 2021 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad and thereby cancel anticipatory bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad.

(2.) Heard learned APP appearing for the appellant, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 and learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2-original complainant.

(3.) It is submitted by learned APP appearing for the appellant that offence is punishable under the prohibition of the prevention of Atrocity Act and as per the provision of said Act, anticipatory bail is not maintainable. That there are three eye witnesses of the incident i.e. Sanjaybhai Jayantibhai Nayak (husband of the complainant), Falguniben Jethabhai Nayak (sister-in-law of the complainant) and Kamlesh Jethabhai Nayak (nephew of the complainant). All the three eye witnesses have recorded their statements, which are matching with the case of the complainant as there is a serious offence, which had been committed in assaulting and humiliating the Scheduled Caste member. Hence, it is requested by learned APP appearing for the appellant to allow this criminal appeal. 2. From the other side, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 submitted that trial court has rightly exercised the powers while granting anticipatory bail in favour of the accused person as no prima facie case was made out by the complainant in his complaint. That on the basis of wrong allegations made by original complainant, he had tried to falsely implicate the accused person and tried to get them apprehended. Referring the statement of the complainant given to the Investigating Agency, it is submitted that she herself had claimed that she is not accepting any kind of danger by the accused persons and hence denied the police protection. It is further submitted that the order passed by the trial court is just proper and in accordance with law and hence, same is not required to be interfered. That now charge-sheet is filed and trial is about to commence as no further investigation is left and keeping the accused persons in jail will not serve any purpose and it will just amount to disrespecting the principles of natural justice, principle of bail as above and jail is an exception. Hence, it is requested by learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1-accused to dismiss the appeal and confirm the order granting anticipatory bail in favour of the accused persons as no prima facie case is made out by the prosecution. 3. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2-original complainant has supported the arguments made by learned APP appearing for the appellant and submitted that complainant and the appellants are staying adjoining premises and at present, investigation is under progress, therefore no anticipatory bail can be granted in view of Sec. 438 of the Cr.P.C. That prima facie involvement of the appellant is clearly made out from the complaint itself, and therefore, trial court has committed an error in granting anticipatory bail in favour of the accused No.1. It is further submitted that impugned order passed by the learned trial court is unjust and improper and therefore, requested to allow this appeal by quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the trial court.