RANGOONI ZAKIUDDIN AHMEDALI 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) Amendment Act , 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocity Act" for short) at the instance of the appellant - original accused No.1 for the anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being I-C.R.No.12/2019 registered with Vadaj Police Station, District: Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 306 , 114 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3(2)(v) , 3(2) (v-a) of the Atrocity Act.

(2.) The short fact of the prosecution is that the FIR has been lodged by one Parulben Khodabhai Parmar inter alia contending that the builders of the Imam Tower, being the present appellant, and one Fazalbhai-original accused No.2 were indebted to the husband of the complainant namely Khodabhai Parmar, and they had allotted one flat to the complainant and another flat to her husband towards the said amount but they were not getting the sale deed executed in their favour. Time and again, the accused have insulted her husband, as he was a member of Scheduled Caste, before he committed suicide on 10.01.2019. It is further alleged that even one Shekharbhai - accused No.3 had not made payment for the labour work to the tune of Rs.18,00,000/- of one DPS School which the husband of the complainant had done, and even he had insulted him and threatened to kill him, as he kept on demanding the due amount, which has been alleged to be the additional factor for the husband of the complainant to commit suicide. With these allegations, the complaint came to be filed against the accused persons. 2.1 It is also contended by the appellant that he has approached the Sessions Court by filing anticipatory bail application being Criminal Misc. Application No.377 of 2019, which has been rejected by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Court No.19, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad City vide order dated 04.02.2019. 2.2 The appellant has contended that there is no prima facie case against him for any of the alleged offence and he is innocent and falsely implicated in the alleged offence. It is also contended by the appellant that the entire case of prosecution as alleged in the complaint seems to be of not paying the amount for the labour work done by the husband of the complainant, and the dispute is of civil in nature. It is also contended that there is nothing on record to show that at any point of time, the deceased was harassed by the accused and he was put in such a situation where he had no option but to commit succeed, therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against present appellant. It is also contended that the complainant is a hearsay witness and she is not an eye witness to any of the incidents or facts narrated by her in the complaint. It is contended by the appellant that no prima facie offence is made out against him under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, which is mandatory for invoking Section

(3.) (2)(va) of the Atrocity Act and no custodial interrogation of the appellant is required as there is nothing to be recovered or discovered at the instance of the appellant. He, therefore, prays to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. 3. The respondent No.2 - original complainant has filed Affidavit wherein she has stated that on account of intervention of the respected members of the family, business community and society, an amicable settlement has been arrived at between her and the present appellant and she has no grievance with the appellant and she has received the cheques as mentioned in the compromise agreement dated 03.05.2019.