STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MUKESHBHAI NARAYANDAS SADHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Learned Advocates appearing for the respective respondents waive service of notice of Rule.

(2.) By way of the above applications, the applicant - State has given challenge to the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in :-

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jirga Jhaveri contends that Sec. 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been invoked against the respective respondents, and submits that the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in 2014 8 SCC 273 while dealing with the matters. It is also submitted that the respondents are also charged under Sec. 120B of the IPC and Sec. 409 is punishable with imprisonment of life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Thus, it is further submitted that in co-relation to Sec. 409 , Sec. 120B of the IPC would also provide for punishment of imprisonment of life, where the party is criminal conspirator then he is also punishable in the same manner as if he has abetted the said offence. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge has failed to consider the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 when the Sec. which have been invoked against the accused are punishable with imprisonment for life and would fall in Category B) as laid down in Satender Kumar Antil (supra). It is further submitted that decision in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) would not be applicable and the cases need to be decided on merits, pursuant to the process being issued to the accused.