GORDHANBHAI SHANKERBHAI THAKER Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This Application is filed by the applicants for releasing them on anticipatory bail in connection with the F.I.R, registered at Chhota Udepur Police Station, which is at Annexure 'A' page 5 to this Application.

(2.) . Mr. Vin, learned Advocate appearing for the applicants, submitted that the offence was committed on 13-9-1992 and the complaint was filed on 16- 9-1992, almost after three days of the incident. The averments made in the complaint shows that there is no ring of truth in the story narrated by the complainant and the complaint is filed by another person and that too not at a place where the incident had occurred but at other place. Therefore, this Court should grant anticipatory bail to the present petitioners. It is true that there is a delay of three days in lodging the complaint. But why there was delay in lodging the complaint late after three days is explained in the complaint itself by the complainant. The victims were the unfortunate labourers, who were allured by the accused persons for doing the labour work at their place on payment of money, who were not paid their dues and instead of that they were mercilessly beaten and threatened with their life by the applicants-accused. Thus, the victims who have worked for days together as bonded labourers with the complainant were threatened and mercilessly beaten by the accused when they had demanded money for their labour work. They were treated as slaves. The victims belong to Scheduled Tribe community and they were beaten so mercilessly that they had even no courage to go before the Police and lodge their complaint against the accused. It was only when the complainant was told about this pathetic story, he showed some courage in going before the Police and lodging the complaint after three days of the incident, by taking up the cause of the helpless poor Scheduled Tribe persons. Thus, under the circumstances, in fact the delay of three days is no delay at all and even if it is considered to be delay, then it is satisfactorily explained in the complaint itself. Therefore, merely because there is delay of 3 days would not help the applicants-accused in this case. Therefore, the contention raised by Mr. Vin, that there is delay of three days and, therefore, this Court should grant anticipatory bail to the applicants-accused fails and it is rejected.

(3.) . Second submission made by Mr. Vin that there is no ring of truth in the complaint is devoid of any merit. Whether the story narrated in the complaint is true or not can only be decided by the trial Court after the evidence is led by the prosecution. At this stage this Court has to only consider whether the averments made in the complaint disclosed the commission of the offence or not alleged to have been committed by the applicants-accused. From reading the complaint as it is, it is clearly born out that the applicant-accused have committed serious offences alleged against them. Therefore, this contention raised by Mr. Vin also fails and it is rejected.