STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PRAVINBHAI KANTIBHAI GAMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has challenged the regular bail order granted on 1/4/2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Application no.119/23 on the ground that the order is illegal, improper and against the provisions of law. The accused is the principal offender and has been mentioned as accused no.1 in the FIR. The main motive of the respondent - accused was to eve tease the witness no.1 and the deceased Vinaybhai Prafulchand Rawal stopped the accused and the co-accused from eve teasing and under the said envy, the accused murdered the deceased.

(2.) Learned APP submits that the principal offender is involved in the heinous crime and twice the bail application came to be rejected which was never challenged and thus, has become final and without any change of circumstances or fact situation, the learned Sessions Judge has granted the bail. Learned APP stated that the delay in trial is no ground for bail. Relying on the judgment in the cases of Manoj Kumar Khokhar v. State of Rajasthan & Anr ., (2022) 3 SCC 501 and Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr ., (2022) 8 SCC 559, it is stated that there are guiding principles for adjudicating the regular bail application when the Court has to take into consideration several aspects. However, delay in trial has not been considered as a factor to grant bail and stated that the balance has to be maintained to even consider the protection of the victims from the accused. While relying on Puran Shekhar & Anr. v. Rambilas & Anr., reported in (2001) 6 SCC 338, it is submitted that the bail order passed by ignoring the material and evidence on record and without giving reasons, would be perverse and contrary to the principles of law and has also relied upon the decision of State through CBI v. Amaramani Tripathi, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 21 and Mamta Nair v. State of Rajasthan & Anr ., reported in (2021) 7 SCC 442 to submit that the factors to be considered for the grant of bail and cancellation of bail have been restated and the circumstances that warrant for the grant of bail on denial of the successive bail application or cancellation of bail on earlier occasions has to be on cogent ground and mere delay in trial or examination of principal eye-witnesses cannot be considered as change in circumstances for the Court to consider successive application of the accused for bail to enlarge him for his liberty.

(3.) Mr. Janak Vardey submitted that the applicant- accused was denied bail in the FIR registered before Danta Police Station, Banaskantha for offence under Sec. 302, 34, 354 of the IPC which had culminated into Sessions Case no.18/2022. Mr. Janak Vardey has relied upon the Rojnama of the Sessions Case and states that since 15/3/2022, the requisition was sent for the Muddamal and the learned APP had appeared and thereafter, the trial stood adjourned for consecutive 3 adjournments and on 18/5/2022, learned APP produced documentary list vide Mark 5/1 to 5/44 and the matter was adjourned for the hearing of the charge and thereafter too, on 1/6/2022, the matter was adjourned for hearing of the advocates on framing of charge and on 2/7/2022 at Exh.6, charge was framed and vide Exh.7, plea of the accused was noted. The trial was adjourned on 16/7/2022 and on 30/7/2022 on observing that since the witness was not present, the witness summons was issued for the complainant adjourning the matter on 10/8/2022. After 3 adjournments, on 1/10/2022, the bailable warrant was issued against witnesses 1, 3 and 5. On 14/12/2022 at Exh.8, the deposition of the witness Sunilkumar was initiated to be recorded but as the Muddamal had not come, it stood adjourned. Thereafter, the accused had given an application under Exh.9 for Narco test. Learned advocate Mr. Janak Vardey submitted that the matter stood adjourned for 12 adjournments starting from 28/12/2022 to 26/7/2023 only on the ground of producing the Muddamal.