NAVINKUMAR BHAVARLAL KHATIK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application is filed under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11824001211106 of 2021 registered with the Vyara Police Station, Tapi of the offence punishable under Ss. 302, 307, 324, 120(B), 201, 225, 212 and 114 of the IPC and Sec. 135 of the G.P. Act.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as under;

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda assisted by learned advocate Mr. Kishan Daiya appearing for the applicant has submitted that so called incident took place on 14/5/2021 and on the very same day, the FIR came to be lodged. The applicant-accused was arrested on 31/5/2021 and since then he is in jail. It is further submitted that the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed. Learned advocate Mr. Bharda has submitted that the complaint does not name any person and the same came to be lodged against some unknown persons with the allegations that some persons made an assault on the deceased while he was on his way heading towards his house. Learned advocate Mr. Bharda has further submitted that during the course of investigation, it is revealed that the deceased got married with the sister of the co-accused Vijay Mansukhbhai Patel which he did not like and keeping grudge of the same, the said Vijaybhai Patel gave a contract to the applicant-accused to kill the deceased and the applicant-accused in turn gave the said contract to the other co-accused persons. It is also submitted that the only allegation levelled against the applicant-accused is that he was given a contract to kill the deceased for which he was paid Rs.50,000.00. The said allegation was made only on the basis of the statement of the co-accused and as such there is no material or evidence to substantiate the said allegation. Learned advocate Mr. Bharda has submitted that the co- accused Vijay Mansukhbhai Patel, who alleged to have been given the contract to the applicant-accused has already been released on bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The entire case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence against the applicant-accused. It is submitted that the applicant-accused has been arraigned as an accused on the basis of the statement made by the co- accused. The only role attributed to the applicant-accused is that he had facilitated the other co-accused to eliminate the deceased. It was a matter of love affair of the deceased and the sister of the main accused and the present applicant- accused has nothing to do with the same in any manner. He has been falsely implicated in the present offence. Learned advocate Mr. Bharda has further submitted that the co- accused who alleged to have been given the contract to the applicant-accused has already been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and as such, on the ground of parity also, the applicant-accused may be enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that it is true that there are two past antecedents against the applicant-accused. However, in one offence he has been acquitted by the trial court and the other proceeding has been quashed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. Learned advocate Mr. Bharda has submitted that as investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed and the custodial interrogation of the applicant-accused is not required and therefore the trial Court has committed grave error in not releasing the applicant on bail, more particularly when the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. Under the circumstances, learned advocate Mr. Bharda for the applicant prays that the applicant may be enlarged on bail on any suitable terms and conditions.