AKSHAY HIRABHAI BHARVAD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant viz., Akshay Hirabhai Bharvad for regular bail in connection with an FIR, being C.R.No.I-179 of 2016 registered with Vatva Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 120B, 201, 143, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act.

(2.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Paresh M. Darji appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned APP Mr. KP Raval appearing on behalf of the respondent ­ State.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Paresh M. Darji appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and not at all involved in any of the charges levelled against him. That, the investigation is over and there is no recovery and discovery from the present applicant. That, the learned Sessions Court rejected the bail application mainly on the ground that the applicant had earlier filed an application, which was rejected, but the learned Sessions Court ignored the liberty granted by the High Court to prefer regular bail application after filing of the charge-sheet. He has further argued that on the hearsay evidence of one Vipulbhai Rabari, friend of the complainant, the present FIR has been filed. That, there is no direct nexus or connection of the applicant in the so called offence. That, even after the investigation, there is no witness on the record, which suggests that because of the blow or attack by the applicant, the deceased died. Thus, it can be said that whole incident is on suspicion. Not only that, even from the entire FIR or charge-sheet papers, no direct evidence has come forth on the record as to how alleged offence took place. That, the version of the the complainant having identified the accused in the alleged offence with other accused is not supported by any independent witness, and therefore, identification is baseless and even the same may not be the sole ground for denial of bail to the applicant. That, the applicant has been falsely roped into the alleged offence only as a scapegoat and there is nothing whatsoever connecting the applicant with the alleged offence. That, the applicant is only the bread winner of his family. Lastly, he has submitted that considering the nature of allegations, role attributed to the applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.