RUSHIKABEN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer is made for cancellation of the bail granted by this Court dtd. 5/11/2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.15792 of 2002, in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.11191039201369 of 2020 registered at Sabarmati Police Station, Dist. Ahmedabad City, for the offence punishable under Ss. 354, 354(a) 1(1)(2), 376, 376(2)(N), 417, 506(2) of IPC and Ss. 7, 8 and 11(6) and 12 of the POCSO Act, alleging that the respondent No.2 has committed breach of the conditions laid down in the bail order, wherein, he was directed not to take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty and not to act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr.Mohammedzaid M. Shaikh for the applicant submits that the respondent had threatened the brother of the applicant, while he was attending the marriage to compromise the matter or to face dire consequences. Learned advocate Mr.Shaikh has referred to the incident for which, an FIR came to be lodged at Sabarmati Police Station on 12/5/2023, being I - CR No.11191039230138/2023 for the offence punishable under Ss. 323, 294(A), 506(1) and 114 of the IPC and one Dimpleben W/o Bipinbhai has also filed an FIR on the very same day in connection with the said offence as I- CR No.111910392030139 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Ss. 452, 323, 294(b), 143, 147, 149 and 506(1) of the IPC against Bipinbhai and the brother of the present applicant and others.

(3.) The allegation is made that the accused is taking undue advantage of liberty and misusing liberty and he acts in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution. It appears from the record that earlier two FIRs have been lodged, one is lodged by the applicant against the respondent No.2 and second is lodged as FIR being I-CR No.11191039201370 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Ss. 354, 294(b) and 506(1) of IPC against the father of the present applicant by the mother of the respondent No.2. The facts of multiple FIRs show that there are internal disputes and past enmities between the concerned parties. If all the witnesses feel threatened by any of the accused, then may pray before the Prosecution Authority for a protection under the Witness Protection Scheme. Further, no complaint is made by the Investigating Officer against the present respondent No.2 of any act, which would be considered as injurious to the prosecution. The cancellation of the bail once granted cannot be in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial. The respondent No.2 was granted bail after the facts of the case was considered where on behalf of respondent No.2, it was submitted in Criminal Misc. Application No.15792 of 2020 that the accused and the victim were in love affair and it was on the refusal of the proposal of marriage by the family members, the victim had gone to the house of the accused and pressurized for marriage. As a result, the FIR came to be lodged. The family members of the victim appear to be against that relation and the present application appears to have been made only with an ulterior motive to see the respondent No.2 in jail. Once the bail has been granted considering the merits and when no supervening circumstance is brought to the notice of this Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain the application for cancellation of bail. Hence, the present application is rejected.