PRAVIN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these applications are filed under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11204065230073/2023 registered with the Vaso Police Station, Kheda for the offence punishable under Ss. 302, 201, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

(2.) Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the so-called incident has taken place for the period between 20/4/2023 to 21/4/2023, for which, the FIR has been lodged on 21/4/2023 and the applicants have been arrested in connection with the same on 22/4/2023 and since then, they are in judicial custody. Learned advocate submitted that now the investigation is completed and after submission of the chargesheet, the present application is preferred. Learned advocate submitted that entire case of the prosecution hinges upon circumstantial evidence and nobody has witnessed the incident. Learned advocate submitted that during the course of investigation, the discovery panchnama of the weapon used in the commission of crime drawn under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was by the concerned IO and at that relevant point of time, certain revealing facts have been disclosed by the co-accused. Learned advocate submitted that entire sequence of events of incident narrated by the co-accused before the IO at the time of drawing discovery panchnama clearly goes on to show that the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.5025/2024 had mutilated the head of the deceased and the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.5283/2024 had killed the deceased. Learned advocate submitted that if the Hon'ble Court would make a cursorily glance upon the contents of the said panchnama, it is clearly stated that the murder was committed by the main accused and the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.5283/2024 and at that relevant point of time, the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.5025/2024 was not found available at the place of occurrence and after commission of crime, he had supported the main accused in mutilating the head of the deceased, therefore at the most, it can be said that the role of the present applicant is falling under the definition of Sec. 201 of the IPC, which provides 'Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender' and maximum punishment, which can be imposed, is upto seven years. Learned advocate submitted that in fact, the involvement of the applicants are found out on the strength of the statement of the co-accused while drawing panchnama while he was in judicial custody and, hence, the said statement cannot be said to be admissible in law and it can be said to be a weak piece of evidence and cannot be taken into consideration at the time of leading evidence and also cannot be considered in case of co- accused. Learned advocate submitted that other co- accused have been considered by this Court.

(3.) Learned advocate submitted that so far as the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.5283/2024 is concerned, there is no specific role attributed to the said applicant - accused. Learned advocate submitted that there is no recovery or discovery pending at the instance of the present applicant - accused. It is, therefore, urged that considering the nature of the offence, the role attributed to the present applicants and on the ground of parity, the applicants may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.