DIPAKBHAI KANJIBHAI BABARIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application is filed under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant for regular bail in connection with an FIR being C.R.No.I-15/2016 registered with Kotda Sangani Police Station, , District: Rajkot for the offences punishable under Ss. 302, 397, 326, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, and Ss. 37(1) and 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

(2.) Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person, however, he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. Learned advocate further submits that the First Information Report was filed against four unknown persons. The applicant was not named in the First Information Report, but subsequently on the basis of further statement dtd. 5/4/2016 of Gangaben, the complainant,, he has been arraigned as accused. It is submitted that till date, the other three accused persons as alleged in the First Information Report are not traceable or no efforts have been made to arrest them. Learned advocate further submits that the present applicant is the nephew of the deceased and after the incident when the complainant went to Babubhai, said Babubhai intimated the other brothers and the present applicant also, and accordingly, the present applicant has reached the place of incident and tried to extend all possible help in providing medical treatment to the deceased person and the complainant. It is submitted that the alleged bloodstains on the clothes of the present applicant is not a sufficient piece of evidence to implicate the present applicant because the present applicant has helped in bringing the complainant and the deceased person to the hospital in his vehicle, and at that time the bloodstains of the injured persons came on the clothes of the applicant. Learned advocate further submits that the applicant has not played any role in commission of offence. The learned advocate for the applicant by referring to the statement of P.W. 6 Bhagwanbhai submits that there is another person also known as 'Khoda' and the deceased was also referring to the name of said Khodabhai. The present applicant is implicated on the basis of a further statement on account of a land dispute between the two families. It is submitted that there is no recovery or discovery from the applicant despite he was remanded and interrogated for a period of seven days. It is further submitted that the investigation is over, charge sheet is filed, and therefore, now there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence and the applicant is ready and willing to abide by the conditions that may be imposed while releasing the applicant on regular bail. It is therefore submitted that considering the nature of allegations, and the role attributed to the applicant, he may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the application and submitted that there appears to be a prima facie case against the applicant looking to the charge sheet papers and looking to the gravity of the offence, the applicant may not be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that the present applicant was arrested on the basis of statement of the complainant, which was recorded on 5/4/2016. It is also submitted that bloodstains were also found on the clothes of the present applicant, and therefore, there is a strong prima facie case against the applicant for committing the alleged offence, and therefore, he may not be enlarged on bail.