Anjanaben Narendrabhai Patel v State of Gujarat

Anjanaben Narendrabhai Patel v State of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court

15 October 2013

Criminal Misc.Application (For Regular Bail) No. 14570 of 2013

The Order of the Court was as follows :

1. By way of the present application filed under Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed to release him on regular bail in connection with F.I.R. registered at C.R. No. I 103 of 2012 with Harij Police Station, Patan for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B), 201 and 34 of the IPC and under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

2. That on 17.11.2013, one Narendrabhai Mafatbhai Patel lodged complaint with Harij Police Station and declared that his brother sustained injuries on his head and some unknown persons have killed his brother. After recording the complaint, several statements of the complainant was recorded on 17.11.2013, 20.11.202, 5.12.2012 and 1.1.2013. In all their statements, he stated that he was not aware about anything or any animosity of his brother with anybody and not stated anything against the present accused.

3. On 15.2.2013, after about three months of lodging FIR, he informed the police that the present applicant had illicit relations with one Kapadiya (Patel) Ashwinbhai and deceased was knowing the same thing and therefore, both of them in connivance with each other, committed murder.

He further informed that his wife was talking with the one Ashwinbhai on mobile.

4. Pursuant to the FIR, the applicant came to be arrested on 17.2.2013 by the investigating agency. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed on 9.5.2013.

5. The applicant approached the Trial Court and filed application under Section 439 of the Code for releasing him on regular bail, which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patan vide order 7.9.2013 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 488 of 2013. Hence, the present application.

6. Mr. Dengang J. Joshi, learned advocate for the applicant would submit that there is no direct evidence against the present applicant. Even, there is no circumstantial evidence, which relates to the commission of this offence. He further submit that none of witnesses have stated that the applicant was seen in the company of the deceased at any point of time. There is no discovery of weapon at the instance of the present applicant. There are no blood stains found on the cloths of the present applicant. Hence, the applicant may be released.

7. On other hand, Mr.R.C.Kodekar, learned APP opposed this application and submitted that the applicant is involved in the serious offence and she shall not be released since there is evidence against the applicant in the nature of statements recorded by the investigating agency i.e. statement of Vipulbhai Lavjibhai Sanghani, who is the friend of the applicant as well as one Ashwinbhai and one Arunbhai Vanmanibhai Solanki, from whom the Ashwinbhai had purchased the axe.

8. Mr. M.M.Tirmizi, learned advocate appearing for the complainant opposed this application and submitted that the applicant had illicit relations with one Ashwinbhai. He therefore would submit that there was motive behind the commission of offence and therefore, she was not be released on bail.

9. Heard learned advocate for the parties.

10. It is undisputed fact that initially, no doubts were raised against any persons with regard to the crime which took place on 17.11.2013. However, in February, 2013 the complainant has stated that the applicant in connivance with his wife, killed his brother.

11. As far as the statement of Vipulbhai Lavjibhai Sanghani is concerned, the investigating agency has recorded his two statements i.e. on 16.2.2013 and 17.2013. In his first statement, he has stated that the deceased was aware about the illicit relations of the present applicant with one Ashwinbhai and had informed that he wanted to kill the deceased brother of the complainant. In his second statement dated 17.2.2013, he averred the same thing.

12. It appears from the record of Arunbhai Vanmalibhai Solanki from whom the axe weapon was purchased, has been recorded by the investigating agency on 20.2.2013 i.e. after his arrest. There is no IT parade by IO. As advised by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is not advisable to discuss the evidence in detail at the bail stage.

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record and the offence as alleged in the FIR and also considered the order dated 7.8.2013 passed in Criminal Misc.

Application No. 11658 of 2013, by which, the coaccused has been released on bail and also considering the nature of allegations made in the FIR, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence, the application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No. I 103 of 2012 with Harij Police Station, Patan on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/( Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that she shall;

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

[b] not act in a manner injuries to the interest of the prosecution;

[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;

[e] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;

14. The Authorities will release the applicant only if she is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case.

It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law. At the trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage, made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.

15. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

Application allowed

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: