Allowed

Praveenbhai @ Bhaijibhai Ravjibhai Baraiya v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC12 Jul 2019CR.MA/1844/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for regular bail under Section 439 CrPC. The court noted discrepancies in medical evidence and false implication by co-accused acquitted elsewhere, granting bail on personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on regular bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety under specified conditions including appearance at police station and surrender of passport.

Praveenbhai @ Bhaijibhai Ravjibhai Baraiya Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

R/CR.MA/1844/2019 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 1844 of 2019

¶4

==========================================================

¶5

PRAVEENBHAI @ BHAIJIBHAI RAVJIBHAI BARAIYA

¶6

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

¶7

==========================================================

¶8

Appearance:

¶9

MR JM PANCHALFOR MR. BHARGAV K MEHTA(7094) for the Applicant(s) No. 1

¶10

MR CR MISHRA(3474) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR S T GHORAWATJAIN(6039) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR LB DABHI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶11

==========================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

¶13

Date : 12/07/2019

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.I-24 of 2018 registered with Vivekanandnagar Police Station, District Ahmedabad, for offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 395, 397, 447, 427, 504, 506(2) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

2. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

¶17

3. Learned advocate for the first informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor have opposed this application. It is contended that the applicant is shown as original accused No.1 in the FIR and serious allegations are levelled

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

R/CR.MA/1844/2019 ORDER

¶20

against the applicant. When the applicant has
committed the alleged offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court
may not exercise discretion in his favour. It is
also contended that the applicant caused sword
injury to the deceased as well as witness
Bharatbhai and when specific role is attributed
to the applicant, this Court may not exercise
discretion in favour of the applicant. It is
also contended that sword is discovered at the
instance of the applicant and when the applicant
has breached the order of externment passed
against him, discretionary powers may not be
exercised in favour of the applicant. It is also
contended that eleven other cases are registered
against the applicant and FIR under Section 307
of the Indian Penal Code was also registered
against the applicant. Warrant under Section 70
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was
also issued against the applicant and when the
applicant has misused the liberty granted to
him, this application may not be entertained.

¶21

4. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

¶22

5.Having heard the learned advocates for the
parties and perusing the material placed on
record and taking into consideration the facts
of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of
offences, role attributed to the accused,
without discussing the evidence in detail, this

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

R/CR.MA/1844/2019 ORDER

¶25

Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case
to exercise the discretion and enlarge the
applicant on regular bail.

¶26

6. This Court has also considered the following aspects:

¶27

(a) the applicant is in Jail since May, 2018;

¶28

(b)investigation is concluded and charge-sheet
is filed;

¶29

(c)learned advocate appearing for the
applicant has produced on record copies of the
Medical Certificates of the deceased as well as
witness Bharatbhai. Bharatbhai has given history
before the Doctor that he was beaten by the
opposite party with the help of an iron rod and
wooden stick. Similarly, the deceased Vishal
gave history before the Doctor that assault was
made by the opposite party at Hirapur Chowkdi by
wooden stick. Thus, the injured witness
including deceased have not given the name of
the applicant nor they have stated that they
have received sword injury;

¶30

(d)this Court has also perused the Postmortem
Note. It is revealed from the Postmortem Note
that all the thirty-one injuries sustained by
the deceased can be caused with an iron pipe or
stick. Sword injury is not found;

¶31

(e)it is required to be noted that though
sword is discovered, no blood stain was found on
it;

¶32

(f)learned advocate for the applicant has also
referred the order passed by the concerned

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

R/CR.MA/1844/2019 ORDER

¶35

Sessions Court while releasing the co-accused on
regular bail. Copy of the order passed in the
case of co-accused is produced at Page-64 of the
compilation. The Sessions Court has specifically
observed in the said order that on perusal of
the charge-sheet, the prosecution has come with
the fact that the said co-accused were not
present at the place of incident and when the
incident had taken place, the concerned co-
accused were at Ujjain at Madhya Pradesh. Thus,
said four co-accused were falsely implicated in
the FIR in question;

¶36

(g)it is pointed out by the learned advocate
for the applicant that though the FIR was
registered against the applicant for the alleged
offence punishable under Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code, the applicant has been
acquitted by the concerned Criminal Court in the
said matter;

¶37

(h)in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the present case, prima-facie, there is no
material available with the Investigating Agency
connecting the applicant in the incident in
question and prima-facie, false implication of
the applicant cannot be ruled out; and

¶38

(i)in view of the aforesaid, this Court is
inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the
applicant.

¶39

7.This Court has also taken into consideration the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of

¶40

Page 4 of 6

¶41

R/CR.MA/1844/2019 ORDER

¶42

Investigation , reported in ( 2012) 1 SCC 40 .

¶43

8.Hence, the present application is allowed. The
applicant is ordered to be released on regular
bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.I-24
of 2018 registered with Vivekanandnagar Police
Station, District Ahmedabad, on executing a
personal 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 he shall;

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

[d] not leave India without prior permission of the concerned Trial Court;

¶48

[e] mark presence before the concerned Police Station between 1^st to 10^th day of every English calendar month for a period of six months between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;

¶49

[f] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer 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;

¶50

[g] shall not enter the area of Vivekanandnagar Police Station for a

¶51

Page 5 of 6

¶52

R/CR.MA/1844/2019 ORDER

¶53

period of six months except for marking
presence at the concerned Police Station
and attending the Court proceedings;

¶54

9. The authorities will release the applicant only if he 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.

¶55

10. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.

¶56

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

¶57

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)

¶58

piyush

¶59

Page 6 of 6

Praveenbhai @ Bhaijibhai Ravjibhai Baraiya v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveenbhai @ Bhaijibhai Ravjibhai Baraiya v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vipul @ Kano Bhupatbhai Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat

Akrambhai Hanifbhai Dasadiya Vs State of Gujarat

Jitubhai Velabha Gadhvi Vs State of Gujarat

Kailashben W/O Ashoksinh Takhatsinh Chavda Vs State of Gujarat

Vijay Hargovanbhai Joshi(Shirvadiya) Vs State of Gujarat

Soyebkhan Valikhan Pathan Vs State of Gujarat