ANIL P. UDANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the petitions are directed against the same order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Junagadh on 1st January 1992 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 758 of 1991, releasing the respondent-accused on bail on certain conditions. Common questions of fact and law arise in both these applications. By the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and the learned Public Prosecutor, I have thought it fit to dispose of both these matters by this common judgment of mine.

(2.) The petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No. 2 of 1992 lodged his complaint with the city police station in Junagadh charging the respondent - accused with the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for brief) and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 ('the Act' for brief). It appears that the respondent-accused applied for bail to the Sessions Court at Junagadh. That application came to be registered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 758 of 1991. That bail application appears to have been assigned to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for hearing and disposal. By his judgment and order passed on 1st January 1992 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 758 of 1991, the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Junagadh ordered release of the respondent - accused on bail on certain terms and conditions. This upset both the prosecution agency and the original complainant. That is how these two petitions have come to be filed before this Court.

(3.) It may be mentioned that while resisting the bail application in the lower court, the affidavits of the original complainant at Exh. 4 and two witnesses, named, Pankajkumar Natvarlal Mavani and Jayendra Kantilal Raichura at Exh. 6 were filed. Both the witnesses in their respective affidavits appear to have stated that the respondent-accused, if released on bail, would try to influence them by hook or crook in deposing against him at trial. This apprehension on the part of the witnesses appears not to have appealed to the learned Additional Sessions Judge simply on the ground that the respondent-accused had agreed for imposition of one condition that he might remain outside the District in question. I do not think that the approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was correct. What the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have seen was whether the apprehension entertained by the witnesses was real and reasonable. With respect, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not at all considered the affidavits of these two witnesses in proper spirit. The affidavit of the orginal complainant has not at all been referred to by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is too much to think that the respondent-accused would not be able to wield any influence by remaining outside the District. He can as well stealthily enter the District and do the required damage to the prosecution evidence.