ALOK SHRIKANT YADAV Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present appeal under Sec. 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the 'Act, 1989'), the appellant ' original accused has prayed to release him on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.No.I-208 of 2019 registered with Dindoli Police Station, Surat.

(2.) Learned advocate for the appellant submits that reading FIR as it is as well as charge-sheet papers, no evidence is available against the appellant - accused, except statement of co-accused which has no relevance in evidence, as charge-sheet is filed. There is no recovery or discovery of any weapon in the offence at the instance of the appellant. Present appellant is behind bar since 2/10/2020. Only one witness is examined, there are as many as 72 witnesses in the charge-sheet papers. There is no chance that Sessions Case against the appellant shall be completed within near future. The prosecution is trying to establish motive by saying that there was business rivalry between the deceased and the appellant and the appellant had hired sharp shooters to eliminate deceased. No evidence is coming from the statement of the witnesses. Even last seen together is not established considering statement of witnesses. In addition thereto, it is submitted by learned advocate for the appellant that all the co-accused who have played identical role in commission of offences are enlarged on regular bail by this Court or learned Trial Court. Therefore, it is submitted to enlarge the appellant on regular bail.

(3.) On the other hand, learned APP heavily objected the present bail appeal on the submission that there are two statement of the witnesses, who have stated that they have shown house of the deceased to the present appellant, upon inquiry from the appellant and they have also seen that the appellant was going towards house of the deceased, which prima facie establish last seen together. It is submitted that in the statement of witness - Harsh Yadav, it is stated that he has seen video from the mobile of present appellant, whereby, it is recorded that present appellant and other co-accused were beating deceased to kill and that video has been transferred in Pen Drive by some other device. Unfortunately, Pen Drive has not been recovered and video from the mobile is deleted. In these circumstances, Sec. 201 of IPC is also invoked. Therefore, present appellant had motive as he had business rivalry with the deceased. Therefore, the appellant may not be granted regular bail.