BHAVESHBHAI PRAGJIBHAI BARAVALIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petitions under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered as C.R.No.11191015230726 of 2023 registered with Nikol Police Station.

(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that considering the nature of allegations, role attributed to the petitioners, the petitioners may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions. He would further submit that as far as u/s 306 of the IPC is concerned, no averments is made in the FIR as there was a civil dispute between the parties. He would further submit that as the deceased could not replay the balance amount of the agreement to sell, he has committed suicide. The deceased the tenant and therefore, either he has to pay the balance amount or pay the rent. Thus, the petitioners were telling him to vacate the premises. He would further submit that taking these facts as true and genuine, no case u/s 107 of the IPC being abettor is made out. Thus, he submits to allow this petition.

(3.) On the other hand, learned advocate for the complainant taking this Court to the dying declaration as well as suicide note of the deceased, would prima facie indicate that the petitioners have committed the offence and thus, they could not be granted bail. He would further submit that the deceased was kept under pressure to vacate the premises and therefore, the deceased has taken extreme steps to commit suicide by taking sulphar tablets. Therefore, he submits to dismiss the petition. 3. Adopting the submissions of learned advocate for the complainant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.