Allowed

Kiran @ Bodiyo Manojbhai Holechi (Solanki) v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC8 Dec 2022CR.MA/3895/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court granted regular bail to the applicant in a murder case. The court noted that while a conspiracy was alleged, no specific injury or weapon was attributed solely to the applicant in the evidence or charge sheet.

What did the court decide?

Released on regular bail in connection with FIR No. 11196026201657/2020 on executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety of the like amount and complying with eight specific conditions.

Kiran @ Bodiyo Manojbhai Holechi (Solanki) Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Gujarat HC (2022)

¶1

R/CR.MA/3895/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3895 of 2022

¶4

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

¶5

KIRAN @ BODIYO MANOJBHAI HOLECHI (SOLANKI) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

¶6

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

¶7

Appearance:

¶8

MR MOHDDANISH M BAREJIA(10612) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent – State MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the original complainant

¶9

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

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

¶11

Date : 08/12/2022

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

1. This application has been filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection with the FIR No. 11196026201657/2020 registered with Raopura Police Station, Vadodara City for offences punishable under Sections 302, 114 and 120B of IPC as well as Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

¶14

2. Mr. Barejia, learned advocate for the applicant submits that no case under Section 307 of the IPC or any other

¶15

Page 1 of 8

¶16

R/CR.MA/3895/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2022

¶17

section of causing grievous injury has
been invoked in the present matter
against the applicant and further states
that the allegation, as per the charge-
sheet, is that out of earlier enmity,
under some criminal conspiracy, on
14.10.2020 in Central Jail Yard no.12,
while the complainant – Mosinkhan
Sharifkhan Pathan and the deceased
Azharuddin @ Ajju Kaniyo Mohammad Sindhi
were passing from barracks no.4 and 5, at
that time, suddenly accused nos.1 and 3
of the charge-sheet, assaulted with the
iron plate and gave a blow to the injured
on the neck and it is stated that the
complainant intervened, at that time, he
also got injured and subsequently,
Azharuddin Sindhi died. Mr. Barejia
submits that the case, as per the
prosecution witness, is that Sunil-
accused no.1 had inflicted a blow with a
blade on the neck of the deceased and
therefore, that had led to his death,
while no case, as per the charge-sheet,
has been made out against the present

¶18

Page 2 of 8

¶19

R/CR.MA/3895/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2022

¶20

applicant, except that of assault, where
according to Mr. Barejia, there would not
be any injury by 2 persons with a single
blade on the neck of the deceased and the
prosecution also does not attribute the
injury to the present applicant. While no
case has been made out against the
applicant under Section 307 of the IPC or
other allied sections or even as of
assault, though the prosecution has tried
to project the weapon as rusted knife,
which was alleged to be found in one
tracksuit pant, but the witnesses do not
state of use of any such knife. Mr.
Barejia states that the said knife is
recovered from the co-accused – Sunil,
but no weapon has been recovered from the
present applicant–accused.

¶21

3. Mr. Hardik Mehta, learned APP for the respondent – State and Mr. Maulik Soni, learned advocate for the original complainant submit that it was a preplanned attack because of earlier enmity and along with one co-accused, the

¶22

Page 3 of 8

¶23

R/CR.MA/3895/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2022

¶24

conspiracy was hatched with an intention
to kill the deceased as well as the
complainant and it is submitted that the
a knife was recovered from the co-
accused, which leads to the act of
conspiracy. Referring to the statements
of the inmates and the police personnel
at the jail premises, it is submitted
that there are eye-witnesses to the
incident who have corroborated the fact
that the present applicant had also
inflicted blows on the complainant and
even the deceased and thus, urge to
reject the present application.

¶25

4. The statement of the injured states that Sunil and the present applicant both had assaulted them from the back and as Sunil had given a blow with iron plate on the neck, deceased fell down and has alleged that Sunil and the present applicant had also caused injury on the head of the complainant with the iron plate and hand of the complainant. The only single weapon in the form of iron plate has been

¶26

Page 4 of 8

¶27

R/CR.MA/3895/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2022

¶28

recovered, while no blow is attributed to
the present applicant towards the
deceased.

¶29

5.One stab wound of size 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm
(1.5 cm in extended neck) x neck
structure deep was found present
transversely oblique over front of lower
part of neck on the right side. Margins
of the wound was found to be sharp, clean
cut and regular. Wound is fresh and
caused by a sharp pointed weapon. The
prosecution case is that there was use of
blade by the co-accused – Sunil, while
the complainant states that there was
iron plate, which has been used and as
per the Panchnama, the said weapon was
sharp cutting plate. The co-accused –
Sunil has been attributed a blow to the
deceased, while a general allegation is
made against the present applicant and
Sunil that they had caused injury to
complainant on head and hand. The
complaint itself suggests that the
complainant and the deceased were taken

¶30

Page 5 of 8

¶31

R/CR.MA/3895/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2022

¶32

for treatment at the dispensary of the
Central Jail and for further treatment,
the deceased was taken to SSG Hospital.
Thus, the statement suggests that the
complainant was treated at the dispensary
at the Central Jail. No other sections
have been invoked against the present
applicant for the injury caused to the
complainant. Taking this fact into
consideration, discretion is exercised in
favour of the applicant.

¶33

6.Hence, the present application is
allowed. The applicant is ordered to be
released on regular bail in connection
with FIR No. 11196026201657/2020
registered with Raopura Police Station,
Vadodara City on executing a personal
bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Thousand only) with one surety of the
like amount to the satisfaction of the
trial Court and subject to the conditions
that the applicant shall:

¶34

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or

¶35

Page 6 of 8

¶36

R/CR.MA/3895/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2022

¶37

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] 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 the concerned trial court;

¶42

7. The authorities shall adhere to its own Circular relating to COVID-19 and, thereafter, will release the applicant only if the applicant 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

¶43

Page 7 of 8

¶44

R/CR.MA/3895/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2022

¶45

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.

¶46

8.Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. Direct service is permitted.
Registry to communicate this order to the
concerned Court/authority by Fax or Email
forthwith.

¶47

(GITA GOPI,J)

¶48

Maulik

¶49

Page 8 of 8

Kiran @ Bodiyo Manojbhai Holechi (Solanki) v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran @ Bodiyo Manojbhai Holechi (Solanki) 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hareshkumar Durlabhbhai Gatecha Prop. of Shreeji Marketing Vs State of Gujarat

Nitinkumar Maganlal Variya Vs State of Gujarat

Rajeshbhai Kodarbhai Patel Vs Kalpeshkumar Maganbhai Patel

Kantilal Narsibhai Chavda @ Sathvara Vs State of Gujarat

Mukesh Sitarambhai Sadhu Vs State of Gujarat

Jethubha Dipsinh Solanki Vs State of Gujarat