PRAVEEN KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned applications are filed challenging the order dtd. 22/8/2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch granting bail to the respondent no.2 in Criminal Misc. Application No.537 of 2013.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr.Ekant Ahuja appearing for the applicant has submitted that the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside since the same is passed without appreciating evidence. He has referred to the postmortem report, which reveals that it was not the case of Sec. 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC "), but it was the case of Sec. 302 of the IPC. It is submitted by him that though the final cause of death was yet to be ascertained, the regular bail was granted. It is submitted by him that though the prosecution witnesses produced details of WhatsApp conversations upto 29th June only and the Investigating Officer produced the said details upto 20th June only and not entire upto 29/6/2013. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer did not carry out the investigation in proper manner. He has further questioned the postmortem report, more particularly column no.20, which would prima facie reveals suicidal hanging or there is possibility of death of any other manner and no investigation in this regard was conducted. He has also placed reliance on the statement of various witnesses in support of his submissions. He has submitted that the photographs of the dead body reveal that the certain features, which are not noticed in the postmortem report and considering the absence of any internal damage in neck region, it can be said to be homicidal. Thus, he has submitted that the aforesaid facts were required to be appreciated before releasing the accused on regular bail.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.P.R.Abhichandani appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 has submitted that it is not the case of either of the applicant or the State that the respondent no.2 has in any manner misused his liberty or there is any adverse report against the respondent no.2. It is submitted by him that in fact the investigation was undertaken twice by different officers and it was concluded that the deceased had committed suicide. It is further submitted by him that the report of the concerned officer also reveals that there was no foul play so far as the offence under Sec. 302 of the IPC is concerned. He has further submitted that at this stage, the impugned order granting bail to the present respondent no.2 may not be disturbed since the trial is already in progress. It is further submitted that the reasons assigned by the trial court releasing the respondent no.2 on regular bail, are cogent and are premised on the appreciation of the facts and the investigation.