DHARAMSINH JAYRAMBHAI PATEL (VIRAT) Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Adil Mirza, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. K.P. Rawal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1 and Mr. D.A. Chaudhari, learned advocate for respondents no.2 to 10.

(2.) By this application under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the applicant - original complainant has prayed for cancellation of bail granted by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge (Ad­hoc), Gandhidham­Kutch in Criminal Misc. Application no.290 of 2015 dated 18.6.2015.

(3.) Mr. Adil Mirza, learned advocate for the applicant contended that it is a grave offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 342 and 323 of the IPC and therefore, the learned Judge ought not to have exercised discretion in favour of the respondents no.2 to 10. It is submitted that if the dying declaration is perused, respondents no.2 to 10 are specifically named in the dying declaration and therefore, the learned Judge ought not to have exercised the discretion. It is submitted that the learned Judge has not taken into consideration the statement given by the wife of the deceased i.e. Dayaben and other witnesses. It is further submitted that while granting the bail, the gravity of offence and its punishment is required to be considered, which is not done in the present case and therefore, the learned Judge has wrongly exercised discretion. It is further contended that the learned Judge has totally ignored the manner in which the crime was committed and ignoring such a crime and releasing the respondent on bail, will send a wrong signal to the society and therefore, the learned Judge has wrongly exercised the powers conferred under Section 439(2) of the Code in favour of the respondents no.2 to 10. It is therefore submitted that this Court may allow this application as prayed for.