ACHARYA JAGJIVAN GIRDHARBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1 - State of Gujarat and Mr. Raval waives for respondent No.2. By way of the present application under Sec. 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS"), the applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11213005240125 of 2024 registered with Bhadla Police Station, Rajkot Rural, for the offences punishable under Ss. 306 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Ss. 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(2.) Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence. The applicant is accused No.2 in the FIR and has not played any role or any connection with the complainant or his deceased father. The applicant was working as a driver with Irrigation Department and on the day of incident, he being a driver of accused No.1 took accused No.1 in Government vehicle, who is Executive Engineer of Irrigation Department at the land where the deceased was digging the land and when accused No.1 asked for permission for digging, he refused the same and consumed poison. The applicant is protected from day one and even the accused No.1 is also released on bail. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. Mr. Dave has relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand, reported in 2020 (10) SCC 710 and Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 469 and contended that, even the applicant has not uttered any abusive word/s and therefore, the provisions of Atrocities Act are not attracted. In view of the above submissions, learned counsel for the applicant prays to allow present application.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that, considering bar under Sec. 18 of the Atrocities Act, this Court may not exercise jurisdiction under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that, the applicant was present at the spot and when the deceased was consumed poison, he failed to discharge his moral obligation to take in the hospital. Hence, application does not deserve any consideration.