SHIVRAJBHAI RAMBHAI VICHHIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Advocate Mr. Mangukiya states that the applicant is before this Court praying for the modification and/or deletion of conditions no.2(d), 2(g) and 2(h) imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajkot vide order dtd. 5/9/2022.

(2.) Advocate Mr. Mangukiya submits that the bail conditions were imposed in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal no.1404/22 converted from Special Leave Petition (Cri) no.4088/22 passed on 2/9/2022. Mr. Mangukiya states that the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in the order that out of 10 cases alleged against the present applicant who was the appellant before the Hon'ble Apex Court in one serious case which is stated to be of a murder, he is already enjoying anticipatory bail and under the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015, has already spent about two and a half years in custody and in view of the said facts and circumstances of the case, the present applicant before the Hon'ble Apex Court was granted bail on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. Mr. Mangukiya submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had impressed upon the appellant to adhere to all the terms and conditions for grant of bail and liberty was granted to the State to move the Trial Court for cancellation of bail if there was any endeavour by the appellant to threaten the witnesses or tamper the evidence.

(3.) Mr. Mangukiya submitted that the learned Public Prosecutor has insisted before the Trial Court to lay down stringent conditions including the condition that the appellant- accused must not enter limits of Amreli, Bhavnagar, Junagadh, Gir Somnath and Surat Districts stating that some of the witnesses are residing there and the Court should impose conditions to ensure presence of the accused and protection of witnesses and two solvent sureties who are the relatives of the accused, be ordered to be taken from the accused. Mr. Mangukiya submitted that the learned Sessions Court had not verified about the authenticity of the said claim made by the learned Public Prosecutor to state as to who are the witnesses who would be residing in the limits of those Districts, where only except a case under Sec. 302 of the IPC, in the other cases under the Prohibition Act and Arms Act, the witnesses are police officials. Mr. Mangukiya further stated that the offence under Sec. 302 of the IPC where the applicant was granted anticipatory bail, the witnesses are from Savarkundla of District Amreli and all those witnesses are already examined and there was no complaint from the State of having threatened any of the witnesses or there was any endeavour by the applicant to threaten the witnesses or tamper the evidence and in that circumstances, as per the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the only option which the State would have was to move the Trial Court for cancellation of bail. Mr. Mangukiya stated that now the Witness Protection Scheme is in place and none of the witnesses had ever complained against the applicant and there would not be any grievance by the witnesses of the Prohibition Case or under the FIR invoked under the Arms Act since they are police officials. Mr. Mangukiya submitted that the offence which has been registered on 10/12/2019 after coming in force of the GUJCTOC Act i.e. 1/12/2019 is under Ss. 66(1) B, 65-(a)(a), 85(1), 81, 84 of the Prohibition Act being FIR no.III/539/2019 where the police has alleged against 4 of the accused of having consumed liquor and the police has found a bottle which had about 200 ML coloured liquid and the police found it to be liquor.