Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 732 (GUJ)

SHAILESH NARANBHAI BHATANE v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2009-11-19

Z.K.SAIYED

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Learned APP Ms. Chetna Shah waives services of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. The applicant has filed this Application for enlarging him on regular bail in connection with CR No.I-302 of 2008 registered with Naroda Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 411, 414, 379, 356 and 114 of I.P. Code. 3. From the record it appears that the applicant had first filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 811 of 2009 for enlarging him on bail. The said application was dismissed as withdrawn by the applicant on 27.01.2009. Thereafter, this very applicant filed another bail application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 2866 of 2009 for enlarging him on regular bail. The said application was heard at length and when this Court was not inclined to grant the application, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant sought permission to withdraw the said application. The said criminal Misc. Application No.2866 of 2009 was also dismissed as withdrawn by the applicant on 17.4.2009. And now the very applicant has filed the present Criminal Misc. Application No.9185 of 2009 for enlarging him on bail. Before dealing with this application it is required to be observed that there is no change of circumstances or no new ground has been shown by the applicant to enlarge him on bail, except the change of learned Advocate by the applicant. 4. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Sadhwani, appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned APP Ms. Chetna Shah, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Sadhwani has contended that the applicant-accused is only 21 years old and he is falsely involved in the commission of offence. The applicant initially came to be arrested for the offences of Section 379, 365 and 114 of I.P. Code in a chain snatching incident and, thereafter Section 392 I.P. Code has been added. He has contended that there is no evidence as regards the offence under Section 392 of I.P. Code. He contended that the applicant is in jail since last more than 18 months. He also contended that accused No.2 who is a goldsmith has already been released on bail. He contended that looking to the panchnama (Page -17) it would be crystal clear that the stolen property was not recovered from the possession of the applicant. He contended that the applicant is in jail since last more than 18 months. He also contended that accused No.2 who is a goldsmith has already been released on bail. He contended that looking to the panchnama (Page -17) it would be crystal clear that the stolen property was not recovered from the possession of the applicant. He also contended that the applicant is a young boy of 21 years of age and living in the very area where the incidents in question have happened and normally no person would carry on such activities in his very area because he is known to all. Besides, marriage of the applicant was performed on 16.5.2008 and the incident had occurred on 30.5.2008. He lastly prayed that looking to the facts of the case and looking to the age of the applicant he may be enlarged on bail on stringent conditions. 6. Learned APP Ms. Chetna Shah has read the FIR and panchnama and other papers. She has also produced the letter dated 17.11.2009 received from Additional Director General of Police, CID Crime & Railways, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, annexing therewith the information regarding happening of day by day incidents of chain snatching in the city of Ahmedabad and in all over the State, in compliance with the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 6.11.2009. She has contended that looking to the papers it appears that the applicant is involved in the commission of offence. She has contended that the stolen property was recovered from goldsmith Premjibhai Ramjibhai Soni, who has categorically admitted that he has received the said muddamal from the present applicant. She has contended that there are in all nine cases which have been registered against the applicant-accused, out of which eight cases have been registered with Naroda Police Station. She has also contended that identification parade of the applicant was also held and looking to the panchnama of test identification parade, the applicant has been clearly identified as person involved in the commission of offence. She has contended that looking to the seriousness of offence and the fact that day in and day out such type of incident of chain snatching is happening and increasing in rocketing speed in the city and also all over the Gujarat State, it is not desirable to enlarge the applicant-accused on bail. 7. I have gone through the papers produced before me. 7. I have gone through the papers produced before me. I have also considered the submissions advanced by learned Advocates on both the sides. 8. At the time of hearing of bail application, the Court is required to see whether there is prima facie involvement of the accused in commission of offence or not. Looking to the papers produced before me, it is clearly established that the applicant is involved in the offence alleged against him. Looking to the panchnama and the statement of witnesses it is clearly established that the applicant is involved in the commission of offence. Even from the panchnama of Test Identification Parade, it is clearly revealed that the applicant has been identified by the witnesses. The argument that the applicant is resident of said area and, therefore, the complainant and witnesses might have known to him and, therefore, he has been falsely implicated in the offence is not believable. It has not come on record that the applicant has any previous enmity with the complainant or other witnesses. 9. In the case of PRAHLAD SING BHATI v/s. N.C.T. DELHI, reported in AIR 2001 SC 1444 , it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as under : “While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind - (a) the nature of accusations; (b) the nature of evidence in support, (c) the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail; (d) the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused; (e) circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (f) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial; (g) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; (h) the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of ‘the evidence’ which means the Court while dealing with the application for the grant of bail should only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine and prima facie case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.” 10. It is not expected at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.” 10. From the information supplied by the Police Department, it seems that offence of snatching of chains and mangalsutra from the neck of women are happening day in and day out in the city of Ahmedabad as also all over the State of Gujarat and has increased a lot and no body is safe in moving wearing ornaments like chain, mangalsutra, etc. Generally, while going to market, temple, etc. women are wearing ornaments like chain, mangalsutra etc. and the person involved in such type of offence are coming on a vehicle and commit the offences within a split second. The chart showing the information of offences of chain snatching supplied by the Police is taken on record. This is a very serious offence. Looking to the facts of the present case, it is clearly established that the applicant is involved in a very serious offence and if such type of persons involved in habitual offences are released on bail, no body would be safe and no women will be able to move safely wearing such type of ornaments. Therefore, looking to the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex in above decision “....the larger interest of the public or State and similar other considerations”, it is not desirable or advisable to exercise the discretion to enlarge the applicant-accused on bail in such a serious offence, especially when the applicant is involved in number of such type of cases and further when his two consecutive bail applications have not been entertained and applicant has also failed to show any change in circumstances for preferring this third bail application. Only because applicant is a young boy, aged 21 years, alone would be no good ground for releasing him on bail, more particularly, when he is not involved in solitary/single offence but many such types of cases have been registered against him. 11. In view of above, this application is rejected. Rule is discharged. (SBS) Application rejected.