ARUN HEMRAJ DSOUZA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Today, the original complainant is present, who has chosen to appear in the matter as a party-in-person.

(2.) By way of present application preferred under section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed for regular bail suspending the sentence pending main appeal being Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2018, in connection with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated January 08, 2018, passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), in Special Atrocity Case No.81 of 2009, whereby the learned Judge convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs. 1000/? and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for 15 days; and also convicted for the offence punishable under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days with fine of Rs. 500/? and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two days; and acquitted him from the rest of the charges.

(3.) This Court has heard Shri R.J. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, who has relied upon the provisions of section 20 of the Railways Protection Force Act, which necessitates, according to him, prior permission from the competent authority before any civil or criminal proceedings are initiated against any officer or member of the Railway Protection Force (for short 'RPF'). He has also urged that in the present case, no such permission was obtained. This being a protective umbrella for those persons who are acting as Members of the RPF, on that count the judgment and order of conviction and sentence is put to jeopardy. It is also urged that the applicant was on bail during the pendency of the trial. He has further urged that the appeal has also been admitted by this Court and there are strong grounds of the appeal being allowed, which is likely to take a long time and, hence, during the pendency of the appeal, this Court may exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.