LIVARSING TEJSING Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr.N.K.Majmudar on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.N.D.Gohil appearing on behalf of the respondent - State. Rule. Learned APP Mr.Gohil waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent - State.

(2.) In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Criminal Misc. Application No.56/2003 dated 31st January, 2003. The Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharuch has rejected bail application, against which, the present petition is filed.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.N.K.Majmudar has submitted that according to the FIR, offence under Section 399 of IPC has been alleged against the present petitioner but for satisfying the ingredients of Section 399 of IPC, involvement of five persons in that very alleged offence, is very much essential ingredient. However, to emphasis this contention, learned advocate Mr.Majmudar has read over the definition of "dacoity" and provisions of Section 399 of IPC before this Court. Mr.Majmudar has also read over Section 25[1] of the Bombay Arms Act. Learned advocate Mr.Majmudar has also submitted that there are only statements of the Police Officers more than three in numbers and except that no other statement of independent person has been recorded by the investigating officer. He also submitted that this being the first false incident in the career of the petitioner and as such, there is no past criminal antecedence against the present petitioner. Learned advocate Mr.Majmudar has also referred Panchanama for pointing out the fact that only four persons were involved and except that none else was involved in the said incident. He also requested that let the Investigation Officer may be called for or the papers of the charge sheet may also be called for. He also raised contention that prima facie, the charge is not established against the present petitioner. It is also submitted that whatever submissions made before the Sessions Judge, the same have not been considered by the Additional Sessions Judge. He also submitted that there is no person allegedly involved in the said offence, is said to be absconding in the alleged incident. However, he also submitted that any strict conditions may be imposed against the present petitioner in the event of grant of bail in favour of the petitioner and for that, the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by such condition that may be imposed by this Court. It is also submitted that it is not case where conviction is likely but only probability is there and therefore the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on regular bail as the chargesheet has already been received by the present petitioner.