PANKAJ @ LALO MANSUKHBHAI PANDYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter be referred to as "the Atrocity Act" for short) at the instance of the appellant- original accused for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.I-104 of 2018 registered with A-Division Police Station, Junagadh dated 8.8.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 364, 364-A, 365, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 386, 331, 342, 504, 506(2), 201, 212, 114 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(5) of the Atrocity Act and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act

(2.) Short facts of the prosecution case are that on account of theft took place in the house of accused No.6, Samir @ Munno, accused Nos.1,2,3,4 and 5 started inquiry on their own and went to the house of the complainant, i.e. Rohit Vaghela and two of the deceased, i.e. Kishan @ Bitto Rameshbhai Koli and Siraj @ Undardi Rafiq Nagori, and apprehended that as said persons are not earning anything, they must have committed the theft. The accused persons on 1.8.2018 went on motorcycle armed with iron pipe and wooden stick and caught hold of deceased Siraj and made him to sit on the motorcycle and took him in a small compound near Vanjavad area, where the other accused persons were present and the accused persons assaulted the said person, who in turn informed that the complainant and one other person named Kishan @ Bittoo is involved in the theft. It is also alleged that the accused persons went to their house and brought Kishan and the complainant to the same place where they were assaulted, but they did not admit that they have committed theft. It is contended that some of the accused persons also gave electric shock from the motorcycle. As the crowd started gathering, the said persons were shifted to the house of other accused persons. It is contended that their cloths were taken off and hands and legs were tied and they were again assaulted. It is contended that on the next day, when the said three persons were taken to police station, on the way, when they stopped to attend natural call, two persons (deceased) ran away and thereafter, the complainant was again taken to the house of accused and he was again threatened to pay the amount of theft committed within three days else, he will face dire consequences. It is contended that thereafter, the complainant left for Jamjodhpur and then to Rajkot, where he was under treatment and ultimately when the police came for inquiry, the history was narrated and ultimately the FIR was registered. Two persons have died and their dead bodies were found from the forest and thereafter, the panchnama was carried of the dead bodies and subsequently, the charge-sheet was against certain persons.

(3.) According to the appellant, the appellant is falsely implicated and he has not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. It is contended that some of the co-accused have been granted bail by the Trial Court vide order dated 5.8.2018. It is further contended that because of the registration of the past offences under the provision of the Gambling Act, the case of the appellant is not considered though the offence under the Gambling Act has no relevance to the facts of the present case.