JANKIBEN RAJESHKUMAR POPATLAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule for Respondent No.1-State.

(2.) Learned Advocate, Mr. Gandhi, for the applicant would submit that the learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the seriousness of the offence, punishable under Sec. 306 of the IPC, while granting bail to the respondent-accused, which is one of the main basic elements to grant bail. He would further submit that in the present case, on account of the issuance of constant threats by the accused persons, including Respondent No.2, the deceased consumed pesticide on 20/12/2023 and he breathed his last, while undergoing treatment at hospital, on 13/1/2024. It was, further, submitted that, though, the deceased had already repaid Rs.1.35 crore to the accused persons, they were demanding more amount and for which, they allegedly issued threats to the deceased, which led him to take the extreme step. It was submitted that the concerned Court granted bail, just within a few days from the date of the registration of the FIR. It was submitted that what appears to have weighed with the concerned Court is that Respondent No.2 does not have any criminal antecedents and thereby, granted bail to him. It was submitted that considering the fact that the investigation was at initial stage, the concerned Court ought not to have granted bail to Respondent No.2. He would further submit that the impugned order is an unreasoned order and concerned Court has failed to notice and observe the well settled principles for grant and refusal of bail. Hence, it was prayed to allow this petition.

(3.) On the other hand, learned APP adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate for the applicant and prayed that the appropriate orders may be passed in the facts and circumstances of this case.