VIDHYABEN MUKESHBHAI NAYI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this application, filed under Sec. 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in brief, 'the Code'), the applicant-first informant seeks to assail the order dtd. 26/6/2023, passed in CR.M.A. No. 855 of 2023, by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, granting anticipatory bail to the respondent-original accused No.1 in connection with the offence registered with the Chandkheda Police Station, District: Ahmedabad City, being CR No. 11191008230406 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Ss. 323, 294(b), 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in brief, the 'Act of 1989').

(2.) Learned Advocate for the applicant would submit that learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the offence under the provisions of the Act of 1989, while granting bail to the respondent-accused. He would further submit that the trial Court granted bail, only on the ground that Respondent No.2- accused No.1 is a lady accused and that she has no criminal antecedents. It was submitted that the trial Court ought to have taken into consideration the fact that there is a prima facie case made out against the accused persons, from the plain reading of the FIR. He would further submit that the impugned order is an unreasoned order and learned Court below has failed to notice and observe the well settled principles for grant and refusal of bail. It was submitted that there is also misuse of liberty by Respondent No.2-accused No.1, whereby, she is alleged to have tempered with the CCTV footage with the help of a third party and she has also been trying to influence the witnesses and for which already a complaint has been given on 5/7/2023, which is produced as Annexure-F to this petition.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Advocate, Mr. Dave, appearing for the respondent-accused supported the impugned order by submitting that the two co-accused, who had played graver role than Respondent No.2-accused No.1 and who had been denied anticipatory bail by the trial Court, have already been granted anticipatory bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 11/8/2023, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1607 of 2023. It was, thereby, submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned passed by the trial Court. It was, further, submitted that, since, the charge-sheet is filed, the charges are framed and the case is now committed, the present application be dismissed.