LALJIBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this successive bail application, the applicant- Laljibhai @ Lalo Mer, original accused no.8, is seeking regular bail under Sec. 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in connection with an offence registered with Kapodra Police Station, District: Surat being C.R. No.11210022213414 of 2021, for the offences punishable under Ss. 143, 144 , 148, 149, 302, 323, 504, 506(2) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

(2.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to file present successive bail application are that, the brother of the complainant namely Dipak @ Dilip Chavda was killed on 15/12/2021 at the place mentioned in the FIR. The incident in question took place on 15/12/2021 at about 9:30 p.m. Before the incident, scuffle took place between the deceased and co- accused Bholabhai Revabhai in relation to Bolero car, which had suffered damages when it was parked at the place of incident. It is case of the prosecution that, keeping grudge of the earlier incident in mind, the accused formed an unlawful assembly, came at the place in the different vehicles, armed with dangerous weapons like sword, baton and wooden log with a common intention to kill the deceased Dipak, and they caused fatal injuries and assaulted him, as a result, he succumbed to his injuries. Pursuant to registration of the FIR, the accused were arrested, weapons recovered from the accused and after recording necessary statements, charge- sheet came to be filed before the Committal Court. The present applicant has been arraigned as accused no.8 in the charge-sheet. So far role attributed to the present applicant is concerned, it is alleged that, he being a member of unlawful assembly, was present armed with the stick and assaulted the deceased.

(3.) Mr. Asim Pandya, learned senior counsel has submitted that, after withdrawal of the earlier bail application, there is a change in the fact situation as during the course of trial, the applicant is not identified by the eye witnesses and the person who had not identified the applicant-accused in T.I. Parade, his evidence is also, so far involvement of the applicant is concerned, does not inspire confidence. The name of the applicant was not disclosed in the FIR, nor, his active role found in the C.C.T.V. footage. No any blood stains were found either on the stick, or, on the clothes of the applicant.