VIJABHAI TIHIYABHAI DAMOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned advocate Mr.Param Buch for learned advocate Mr.Hriday Buch for the applicant. Respondent No.2 though served, remained absent.

(2.) LEARNED advocate for the applicant is abled to show that even on the date of passing of order dated 10.06.2013 by the trial Court releasing the respondent No.2 on bail, victim was in the hospital. It is submitted that even today he is in the hospital and taking treatment as an indoor patient. Applicant has also addressed a letter dated 06.05.2013 specifically alleging and stating that accused and family members of the accused are giving threats to them and accused are having political support and involved in some other anti -social activities. So far As per FIR offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 337, 323, 326, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. However, by an application dated 14.06.2013, the Investigating Officer has prayed for adding Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and by letter dated 06.05.2013 as well as 05.06.2013, the son of the applicant has conveyed D.S.P., Dahod regarding high handedness of the respondent No.2 and other accused. The fact remains that the impugned order was passed on 10.06.2013 and therefore there was no occasion for the trial Court to consider all such development, which may be after passing of an order of bail in favour of respondent No.2. It cannot be ignored that though two accused namely Jayeshkumar Jhitrabhai Damor and Dalabhai Motibhai Damor has preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 411 of 2013 before the Sessions Court, Dahod for bail, at last Dalabhai Motibhai Damor has withdrawn his application for bail and therefore 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod had by an order dated 10.06.2013 allowed the application of respondent No.2 releasing him on bail on certain conditions as set down in such order. One of the conditions, though it is statutory and basic condition for bail is to the effect that applicant accused shall not give threats or temptation to the witnesses and in case of breach of any such condition the competent Court can initiate proceedings for cancellation of bail. Considering such fact, when applicant has came forward with a case that respondent No.2 has committed breach of any of such condition and that otherwise also order in favour of respondent No.2 needs to be interfered on merits and more particularly when respondent No.2 has failed to appear and to explain that why impugned order is not required to be interfered, there is prima -facie reason to believe submission advanced by the learned advocate for the applicant so as to interfere with the impugned order. For the purpose following decisions are taken into consideration; State of Maharashtra V. Vishwanath Maranna Shetty, 2013 AIR(SC) 158, wherein Honourable the Apex Court while cancelling the bail laid down two conditions for granting bail (1) the satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty for alleging offence and (2) he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. State of Rajasthan V. Balchand, 1977 4 SCC 308 and Susanta Ghosh V. State of West Bengal, 2012 AIR(SC) 976, wherein Honourable the Apex Court has held that the gravity of offence involved is likely to induce an accused to avoid the course of justice. Therefore, in a heinous crime any possibility of absconsion or other abuse can be taken care of by strict conditions like keeping the accused away from the particular area and directing him to mark his presence before local police station periodically and regularly.

(3.) BHUVANESHWAR Yadav V. State of Bihar, 2009 AIR(SC) 1452 wherein Honourable the Apex Court has confirmed that it is necessary for the Courts dealing with the application for bail to consider amongst all other circumstances, following circumstances before granting bail.