BHAIRAVKUMAR RAMESHBHAI KACHVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for respondent - State of Gujarat.

(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. 11195019241023 of 2024 registered with Deesa Rural Police Station, District Banaskantha for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Dagli for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation, trial also and will not flee from justice. He further submits that one incident of free fight between two groups has been occurred at a particular place on the basis of which members of both the parties have sustained injuries and cross-complaints have been filed by both the parties against each other on 28/10/2024. He further submits that the so-called incident is occurred on 27/10/2024. The FIR is filed against total 9 persons and pursuant to the registration of the FIR, investigation commenced and ultimately at the end of the day, the investigating officer concerned has submitted charge-sheet before the competent Court, wherein, applicant is shown as an absconding accused, and therefore, applicant preferred anticipatory bail application before the learned Trial Court, which was not entertained, hence present application is preferred. He further submits that if the Court would make cursory glance upon the body of the FIR, in that event, it would have been found out that name as well as specific role of all the accused persons have been described by the complainant in a very graphical manner. He further submits that it is the specific case of the prosecution that number of persons have sustained injuries and they were shifted to the hospital and at that relevant point of time they had given history before the medical officer and those documents were also supplied along with the charge-sheet papers. He further submits that if the Court would make cursory glance upon those documents, in that event, it would have been found out that name of the present applicant is also not there in the history given before the medical officer. As fair and proper investigation had not been carried out by the investigating officer, one of the witnesses from a rival group had submitted an application to the investigating officer that in the incident, one of the accused persons had fired a gunshot in open air and videography of the the entire incident is recorded. Therefore, those particular Sec. are required to be incorporated by submitting an appropriate application before the Court concerned and thereafter statement of that witness was recorded. He has also supplied copy of videography to the investigating officer concerned, in spite of that, those Sec. were not added. Therefore, a detailed representation was made to the investigating officer and thereafter petition is also preferred by the said witness before this Court and the said petition was disposed of with the specific direction to decide the same within reasonable time. Learned advocate Mr. Dagli submits that in fact the so-called incident is occurred on 27/10/2024, whereas FIR is registered on 28/10/2024. Further statement of the complainant was recorded on 15/12/2024 and at that relevant point of time, name of the applicant has not come on surface, however, subsequently on 7/3/2025, name of the applicant has come on surface on the basis of further statement made by the witness before the IO. He further submits that in fact IO concerned has tried to rope the present applicant on the basis of the statement made by the witness before the IO by way of submitting a detailed report before the competent Court. The said report had not been entertained. However, liberty was reserved to the IO to submit appropriate documents at appropriate stage and therefore at the time of submitting charge-sheet, present applicant has been shown as an absconding accused. He further submits that in fact all the injured witnesses have been discharged from the hospital and the persons who were named in the FIR and arrested by the IO had preferred regular bail application before this Court and they have been released by this Court based upon settlement arrived at between the parties and said fact is clearly mentioned by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at the time of releasing the co-accused. He further submits that no specific role is attributed to the present applicant. Thus, considering the aforesaid factual aspects, application may be entertained.