Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 567 (GUJ)

Ranjeetbhai Surengbhai Khavad v. State Of Gujarat

2020-06-22

SONIA GOKANI

body2020
ORDER : Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State. 1. This is a successive application for anticipatory bail by the applicant, who apprehends his arrest in connection with the FIR being I-C.R. No. 11211045200126/20, registered with Sayala Police Station, Surendranagar, under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1)(b)(a) of the Arms Act. 2. The present applicant had approached this Court by way of Criminal Misc. Application No. 694/2020 for his release on anticipatory bail, where, after hearing the learned Advocate Mr.Barot representing the applicant, this Court, since, was not inclined; the same was permitted to be withdrawn on 20.05.2020. 3. Despite the specific directions issued by this Court, while permitting the request of withdrawal of the earlier application, to surrender before the police without further loss of time and to cooperate with the IO in investigation, he, once again, has approached this Court on the ground of co-accused having been granted anticipatory bail and the regular bail by the trial Court. 4. It is the case of the applicant that one of the co-accused had approached the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Limdi, seeking anticipatory bail by way of Criminal Misc. Application No. 257/2020 and the Court allowed the same on 01.06.2020 and released the coaccused, namely Janak Bahadur Khabad, who is alleged to have inflicted stick blows on the complainant and who also has criminal antecedents. It appears that the other co-accused, namely Bhavu Bahadur Khabad, has also been released on regular bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Limdi, vide order dated 21.05.2020. 5. These, according to the present applicant, are the subsequent change in circumstances, which would entitle him to approach this Court, and therefore, he has made a request to grant him anticipatory bail. 6. This Court has heard the learned Advocate, Mr. Dave, with learned Advocate, Mr. Pavan Barot, who has urged that the possibility cannot be ruled out that the present applicant has been dragged into the entire dispute wrongly and falsely. The applicant is holding the post of Ward Member since 2016 and the complainant is in the habit of lodging false and misleading complaints, even in the past also. Dave, with learned Advocate, Mr. Pavan Barot, who has urged that the possibility cannot be ruled out that the present applicant has been dragged into the entire dispute wrongly and falsely. The applicant is holding the post of Ward Member since 2016 and the complainant is in the habit of lodging false and misleading complaints, even in the past also. The persons, who played major roles in commission of crime have been granted anticipatory bail as well as regular bail, and therefore, his case also deserves to be considered, which is quite lesser in terms of gravity. Though, he had knife in his hand, the injuries alleged caused to the complainant are on the non-vital parts of the body. He, therefore, has urged that the present applicant shall have everything to lose in terms of his social status and his position and his future in politics, if, this application is not allowed. 7. Learned APP has strongly objected to the same on the ground that there is no change of circumstances in this application, and he in the shortest duration has chosen to prefer this application without even complying with the directions of this Court and therefore, the same is neither maintainable nor to be entertained. 8. Having heard both the sides and also having considered the chronology of the events, this Court finds no reason, much less any valid and cogent reason to consider the request of the present applicant. So far as regular bail is concerned, unless, there is change in circumstances, which can be said to be vital, the successive application for bail is not to be entertained, whereas, what is found here is in case of one of the co-accused, he has been granted anticipatory bail by the trial Court on 01.06.2020. 9. In the case of the present applicant, the withdrawal of his earlier application was permitted by this Court on 20.05.2020, with a specific direction to surrender before the police without further loss of time and cooperate as he could not have gone and challenged the order of this court before the higher forum for having chosen to withdraw the application of anticipatory bail. The applicant appears to have decided not to comply with the directions issued by this Court and has, instead, approached this Court with impunity, by comparing his case with one of the coaccused, whose name was also not there in the medical case papers. 10. It is to be noted that the present application is alleged to have had the knife in his hand and the blow given by him is also categorically stated by the complainant in the medical history given before the Doctor and the papers to that effect have also been produced by the IO for the perusal of this Court. He also cannot equate his case with the other co-accused, who has been granted regular bail, since, the parameters would materially differ, when the coaccused has been granted regular bail, whereas, the present applicant seeks anticipatory bail. These are the powers to be exercised with caution and care, more particularly with explicit role specified in the FIR lodged without any delay and substantiated by medical case papers. 11. Here, apt it would be to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in ‘SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS’, where, it categorically specified vital parameters for consideration in crux as under: “122. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; ii. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; iii. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; iv. The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. v. Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. vii. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. vii. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; viii. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; ix. The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; x. Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.” 12. In the case on hand, it is not the case of humiliation to be caused to the applicant nor a case of causing injuries to the applicant. There are specific allegations made in the FIR against the present applicant as also the history given before the doctor reveals his name. This surely is not a case of doubting genuineness of the case. The role attributed to the co accused who has been granted anticipatory bail also cannot be equated with that of the present applicant in as much as his is the only name specified in giving a blow with the knife and had the Complainant not been successful in preventing him with his hand, his life would have been endangered. However, the papers of investigation do not deserve any further dilation at this stage. The case of the applicant cannot be considered to grant him anticipatory bail as by no stretch of any parameters can his case be covered by the criterion laid down. However, the papers of investigation do not deserve any further dilation at this stage. The case of the applicant cannot be considered to grant him anticipatory bail as by no stretch of any parameters can his case be covered by the criterion laid down. Moreover, successive application for anticipatory bail cannot be entertained in case of the applicant who has no regards for the direction and order of this court and who at his own sweet will chooses to wait for the timings suitable to him, when, each day is extremely crucial in the initial days of investigation of crime, which is a journey of finding the truth. 13. Resultantly, this application fails and is REJECTED. The applicant, if, does not cooperate with the IO or goes on buying time, under the pretext of filing successive application for anticipatory bail, the IO shall initiate stringent actions, permissible under the law, against him. Rule is discharged.