AMIR BRIJESHBHAI JAMADAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Application has been preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with the offence being CR No.I49 of 2015 registered with Ankleshwar City Police Station, Bharuch for the offences u/s.302, 201, 120B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Heard Mr.N.D.Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr.Yash Nanavati, learned advocate for the applicant. He has contended that bare reading of the FIR shows that applicant is nowhere involved in the present offence. The cause of death of complainant's husband was ill health and due to that deceased fallen down and got unconscious. He has contended that as per the Inquest Panchnama there were no external injuries over the body of the deceased. He has contended that coaccused has been granted bail by this Court. He has contended that when the first informant has stated in the FIR that deceased had lost his sense and did not respond despite efforts made by the present applicant, there is no question of making any declaration by him before driver Satish. He has contended that in absence of an intention an act or omission does not become an offence without there being any motive. He has contended that at the most present offence may fall under the provisions of Section 304 Part2 of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He has contended that present applicant is wrongly booked by the complainant. He has contended that present applicant will remain present during the trial before the trial Court. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence. He has prayed to grant bail to present applicant.

(3.) Heard Mr.R.C.Kodekar, learned APP for the respondent State. He has vehemently opposed bail application. The offence is serious in nature. He has contended that sufficient evidence are disclosed before this Court. He has contended that looking to the collusion of police, doctor and second postmortem was carried at Surat, in the postmortem note huge injuries are shown. He has contended that present applicant is owner of bricks factory. He has contended that looking to the overall evidence produced on record if the applicant is released on bail, he will tamper with the evidence. He has prayed to dismiss present application.