NARAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Service of rule is waived by Ms. Jhaveri, Ld. APP for respondent no. 1 and Mr. Ashish Dagli, Ld. Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 7.

(2.) THE judgment and order dated 12/2/2013 passed by the Ld. 11th Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Misc. Application No. 126/2013 is under challenge. By such impugned judgment, the Sessions Court has granted bail to respondent nos. 2 to 7 herein, who are disclosed as accused in FIR being C.R. No. I -187/2012 registered with Kuvadva Road Police Station, Rajkot, on 27/10/2014 for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 302, 452, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] and under section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. In such complaint, in -all six persons are shown as accused. Whereas when charge -sheet was filed on 12/1/2013, it was against seven persons. The additional accused -person in the charge -sheet than the FIR is present respondent no. 2, namely Nathubhai Harjibhai. Whereas so far as accused no. 6 in the FIR, who is numbered as accused no. 7 in the charge -sheet, namely Raghubhai Nathubhai is concerned, he is not the applicant in the impugned judgment and, therefore, he is not joined as respondent in the present application. Though said Raghubhai Nathubhai is one of the main accused, who has also given a fatal blow to the victim Sagrambhai, since he was not released on bail by the trial Court, he has preferred an application before this Court and the Coordinate Bench of this Court has released him on bail by judgment and order dated 15/4/2013 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 4979/2013. Therefore, at present, we are not concerned with Raghubhai Nathubhai being accused no. 6 in FIR and accused no. 7 in the charge -sheet under reference.

(3.) SO far as remaining respondent nos. 2 and 7 are concerned, though relevant evidence would be discussed hereinafter, the scrutiny of available record and police papers makes it clear that for the incident which resulted into death of Sagrambhai and grievous injuries to his wife Vaktiben, respondent no. 4 herein Bhanubhai Jadavbhai and respondent no. 7 -Jiteshbhai Karshanbhai were having scythe in their hands; whereas respondent nos. 2 and 3 - Nathubhai and Karshanbhai were having stick and respondent nos. 5 and 6 -Raghavbhai and Rameshbhai Nathubhai were having cudgel and Raghubhai Nathubhai was having iron pipe by which victims were beaten at the relevant time. Therefore, considering the allegations in the FIR and statement of victim Vaktiben, when cause of death is because of injuries by pipe and scythe, there is no reason to interfere with the bail order granted in favour of Nathubhai Harjibhai, Karshanbhai Harjibhai, Raghavbhai Khimjibhai and Rameshbhai Nathubhai i.e. respondent nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Thereby considering the following facts and details, the application deserves to be allowed only for respondent nos. 4 and 7. Whereas it is to be dismissed for remaining respondent nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6.