Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 239 (GUJ)

Rahul Arjunbhai Yadav v. State Of Gujarat

2019-03-18

A.P.THAKER

body2019
JUDGMENT : A.P. THAKER, J. 1. Admit. Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of admission for respondent No.1 -State and Mr.D. S. Mourya, learned advocate waives service of notice of admission for respondent No.2 2. This is an appeal filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at the instance of the appellant -original accused against the order dated 27.09.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), City Sessions Court Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.6116 of 2018. 3. It is the case of the appellant that the FIR has been registered being I- C.R.No.56 of 2018 with Vadaj Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. By filing this appeal, the appellant has submitted that he is innocent and no specific role has been attributed to him in the charge-sheet for assaulting the deceased Maheshbhai. It is submitted by the appellant that there was sudden quarrel and the complainant has given names of four persons in the complaint and, thereafter, added one unknown person. It is also submitted by the appellant that there was no previous enmity with the deceased Maheshbhai nor there is enmity with the brother-in-law of the deceased Maheshbhai. According to him, the enmity with other co-accused namely Dhirubhai Sureshbhai Bharwad with whom enmity was, has been enlarged on bail by this Court. According to him, the only allegation against him is regarding assault on the witness Aftabbhai @ Pappubhai, who had also not attributed any role to the appellant for assaulting the deceased. According to him, he has bread earner of the family and he is young aged about 24 years and belongs to poor family. According to him, if he is released on bail, he shall not abscond nor shall temper with any of the prosecution witnesses and will abide by all the conditions, which may be imposed by this Court. He has prayed to released him on bail on appropriate suitable conditions. 5. Heard Mr.A. I. Pathan, learned advocate for the appellant, Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 -State and Mr.D. S. Mourya, learned advocate for respondent No.2. 6. He has prayed to released him on bail on appropriate suitable conditions. 5. Heard Mr.A. I. Pathan, learned advocate for the appellant, Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 -State and Mr.D. S. Mourya, learned advocate for respondent No.2. 6. Mr.A. I. Pathan, learned advocate for the appellant has contended the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal and has submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are general in nature and stereo type statements have been recorded by the Investigating Officer. He has submitted that there is no recovery or discovery from the present appellant. He has further submitted that one Dhirubhai Sureshbhai Bharward, who is main accused, has been enlarged on bail by this Court and the role attributed to the present appellant is only giving a blow to one witness Aftabbhai @ Pappubhai, whose statement does not implicate the present accused, in assaulting the deceased. According to him, whatever allegations regarding assault on the deceased are general in nature. He has further submitted that on the ground of parity, the present appellant may be released on bail. 7. Per contra, Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 -State of Gujarat has submitted that specific role has been attributed to the present appellant in the FIR as well as in the various statement of the witness, who is one of the injured witness. She has also submitted that the affidavit of the Investigating Officer gives clear fact that the present appellant was involved in assaulting deceased as well as witness Aftabbhai and prima facie case is made out against the present appellant. She has further submitted that there is medical evidence which shows that the injured has been given blow by the present accused and there were multiple injuries on the part of the body of the deceased. According to her submissions, the present appellant - accused along with others, armed with deadly weapons, have played the role in the present offence and there is no question of any parity, as this accused has inflicted the blow on the deceased and witness Aftabbhai. She has urged to dismiss the present appeal. 8. According to her submissions, the present appellant - accused along with others, armed with deadly weapons, have played the role in the present offence and there is no question of any parity, as this accused has inflicted the blow on the deceased and witness Aftabbhai. She has urged to dismiss the present appeal. 8. Mr.D. S. Mourya, learned advocate for respondent No.2 has adopted the arguments advanced by learned Additional Public Prosecutor and has submitted that so far as the co-accused Sanjay @ Shailesh is concerned, since this Court has not entertained the appeal for bail, he has withdrawn the same and on the ground of parity, the present appellant may not be released on bail, who is involved in the alleged crime and there is difference between the role of Dhirubhai and the present appellant. 9. Now, on perusal of the papers, it reveals that there was quarrel between the complainant and four accused and one another unknown person and when the deceased Maheshbhai intervened, four accused with deadly weapon like big knife assaulted the deceased Mahesbhai and caused injuries on chest and back side of body, due to which, Maheshbhai died. On perusal of the postmortem report submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it clearly reveals that there were multiple stab wounds on the body of the deceased. It also reveals from the complaint as well as statements of various witnesses including the statement of witness -Aftabbhai that the present appellant has taken active part in the entire incident and assaulted Mahesbhai as well as given blow on the shoulder of Aftabbhai. Of course, the statements of witnesses and statement of Aftabbhai is on the same line. It is a case wherein when the witnesses have seen the incident and they have stated the same facts before the police and merely because, there is stereo type statements of the witnesses, no case is made out to release the appellant on bail for the alleged offence which is serious in nature. Considering the active part of the present appellant and considering the seriousness of the offence, this is not a fit case to exercise the discretion by this Court to enlarge the appellant on bail. 10. The present appeal is devoid of merits and it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.