Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 387 (GUJ)

Sajid Iliyas Kerun v. State of Gujarat

2017-02-15

AKIL ABDUL HAMID KURESHI, BIREN VAISHNAV

body2017
ORAL ORDER : AKIL KURESHI, J. This bail application is filed by the appellant-original accused No. 1. The appellant was charged with offence of murder along with three other accused. The Sessions Court acquitted the remaining accused, but convicted the present appellant for the charges framed and sentenced life imprisonment. At the time of admission of the criminal appeal, the accused had preferred regular bail application, which was dismissed as not pressed by an order dated 24.03.2014 This fresh bail application is therefore in the nature of successive bail application. 2. Learned advocate Shri Tolia for the applicant, however, drew our attention to the relevant evidence on record and in particular the deposition of Lataben Joshipura PW-14, who was a sole eye witness. He tried to bring out number of inconsistencies and improbabilities in the version of this eye witness suggesting that the applicant was falsely involved in the said offence. He submitted that two of the accused were acquitted on the ground of successful establishment of the clue of alibi. He would therefore suggest that the sole eye witness had the tendency of implicating wrong persons. Her testimony, therefore, would not be reliable. He also submitted that being the wife of the deceased, she was also an interested eye witness. 3. The submissions on merits cannot be gone into in the present proceedings beyond a prima facie stage. The materials on record would prima facie suggest that the incident occurred in the early morning hours and was witnessed by the said Lataben PW-14-the wife of the deceased. She also knew the accused. The deceased died of multiple stab injuries. At this stage, therefore, it would not be possible to totally discard the version of an eye witness and to suspend the sentence in case of an accused who has been convicted for an offence as serious as that of murder. His plea for regular bail is therefore turned down. The request for urgent hearing of the appeal also cannot be granted, since we have no special reasons for fast tracking the hearing of the present appeal. However, we notice that the accused was an under trial prisoner for a period of close to four and a half years, out of a total seven years served out so far. The request for urgent hearing of the appeal also cannot be granted, since we have no special reasons for fast tracking the hearing of the present appeal. However, we notice that the accused was an under trial prisoner for a period of close to four and a half years, out of a total seven years served out so far. Let the appeal therefore be notified for hearing on 03.04.2017 The Registry shall ensure that before the said date, the paper book and the R & P are received from the trial Court. The application is disposed of, accordingly.