Allowed

Akrambhai Hanifbhai Dasadiya v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC11 Jul 2019CR.MA/4490/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice Vipul M. Pancholi allowed bail under Section 439 CrPC for an applicant in a murder case. The court relied on the non-naming in FIR, lack of injury proof, and cited Sanjay Chandra case. Bail granted on ₹10,000 bond with strict conditions including bi-weekly appearance.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted on personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety, subject to six monthly appearance conditions and passport surrender.

Akrambhai Hanifbhai Dasadiya Vs State of Gujarat — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

R/CR.MA/4490/2019 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 4490 of 2019

¶4

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

¶5

AKRAMBHAI HANIFBHAI DASADIYA

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶8

==============================================================
Appearance:

¶9

MR AD SHAH(733) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR L B DABHI, APP(2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR TATVDEEP J JANI(7227) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶10

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

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

¶12

Date : 11/07/2019

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

1. The present bail application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with FIR being I-C.R.No.124 of 2018 registered with Talaja Police Station, Bhavnagar for offence punishable under Sections 302, 34, 143, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

¶15

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.

¶16

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi appearing for the respondent-State as well as learned advocate Mr. Tatvdeep Jani appearing

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

R/CR.MA/4490/2019 ORDER

¶19

for the original complainant have opposed this
application. It is contended by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor that there are two
eye witnesses to the incident viz. Ghanshyambhai
Bhimabhai Baraiya as well as Manojbhai @
Maganbhai Shardulbhai Makvana. It is also stated
that there is discovery of the weapon and from
the said weapon, blood stain was found. It is
also submitted that cloths of the applicant was
also recovered which was having blood stain. It
is also contended that applicant has also
received injury and the same was found when the
applicant was arrested on the next date of the
incident. It is also submitted that from the
CDR, it is revelled that the applicant was
present at the place of incident when the
incident had occurred. It is therefore urged
that the application may not be entertained and
may dismissed.

¶20

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

¶21

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
Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case

¶22

Page 2 of 5

¶23

R/CR.MA/4490/2019 ORDER

¶24

to exercise the discretion and enlarge the
applicant on regular bail.

¶25

6. I have also taken into consideration the following aspects :

¶26

a. applicant is not named in the FIR.

¶27

b. It is specific case of the complainant that
when his brother was taken to the hospital, two
witnesses viz. Ghanshyambhai Bhimabhai and
Manojbhai Makwana came at the hospital and they
have given name of other co-accused and
therefore, in the FIR, name of the applicant is
not mentioned and subsequently, his further
statement was also recorded. I have also
considered the further statement.

¶28

c. This Court has also considered the
statement of witness, Jaguben wife of Sanjaybhai
Hasmukhbhai Makwana as well as the statement of
so-called two witnesses viz. Ghanshyambhai
Bhimabhai and Manojbhai Makwana.

¶29

d. I have considered the discovery panchnama
and its joint discovery of weapons used by all
the accused.

¶30

e. It is submitted by learned advocate for the
applicant that applicant is residing in the same
village and therefore, the CDR collected by the
investigating agency is not relevant.

¶31

f. The prosecution has failed to point out
from the record that the applicant has received
injury in the incident in question.

¶32

Page 3 of 5

¶33

R/CR.MA/4490/2019 ORDER

¶34

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the present case, I am inclined to consider
the case of the applicant.

¶35

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 Investigation , reported in ( 2012) 1 SCC 40 .

¶36

8.Hence, the present application is allowed. The
applicant is ordered to be released on regular
bail in connection with FIR being I-C.R.No.124
of 2018 registered with Talaja Police Station,
Bhavnagar 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;

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

[e] mark presence before the concerned Police Station between 1^st to 10^th day of every English calendar month for a

¶42

Page 4 of 5

¶43

R/CR.MA/4490/2019 ORDER

¶44

period of six months between 11:00 a.m.
and 2:00 p.m.;

¶45

[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;

¶46

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.

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

Pallavi

¶50

Page 5 of 5

Akrambhai Hanifbhai Dasadiya v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akrambhai Hanifbhai Dasadiya 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

Dashrathsinh Maya S/O Arjunsinh Maya Vs State of Gujarat

Sanjeevkumar Kailasprasad Agrawal Vs State of Gujarat

Amrutlal Pyarchand Mehta Vs State of Gujarat

Vipul @ Kano Bhupatbhai Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat

Jitubhai Velabha Gadhvi Vs State of Gujarat

Imran Remanbhai Mugal Vs State of Gujarat