Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1530 (GUJ)

Bhargav Mansukhbhai Butani v. State Of Gujarat

2022-11-09

A.Y.KOGJE

body2022
ORDER : 1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with I-CR No.246 of 2019 registered with Sarthana Police Station, Surat for offence under Sections 304, 308 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. 3. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent- State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. 3.1 It is submitted that the witnesses would be reduced as prosecution would not examine formal witnesses and in fact, 37 witnesses have already been examined. 3.2 It is submitted that prior to the present incident, previous incident had occurred in another tuition class, after which Fire Officer had issued specific instructions to tuition classes to take necessary precautions. Despite, the applicant has failed to take necessary precautions, which resulted into the incident. 3.3 It is submitted that there is no delay on the part of prosecution. It is submitted that five accused persons have applied for discharge. There applications were rejected by the Sessions Court, who have approached this Court and this Court has granted stay qua two co-accused. However, trial qua other accused persons has been has been segregated and is in progress. 4. Learned Advocate for the victim submitted that the applicant has failed to take even basic precautions knowing full well that his premises would be occupied by students. The applicant did not have any permission nor did he have any electric connection and the stress-case, which was the only access, was also of wood which was burned out by fire, thereby locking escape of the students. 4.1 With regard to mitigating circumstance, learned Advocate for the victim has drawn attention of this Court to the orders passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in matters of other co-accused and submitted that the Court has passed order of depositing substantial amount. 5. In rejoinder, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant was only a tenant and had taken on rent and premises and had put up facilities which included fire fighting facility which is evident from the statement of witnesses. 5. In rejoinder, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant was only a tenant and had taken on rent and premises and had put up facilities which included fire fighting facility which is evident from the statement of witnesses. It is submitted that the applicant was not responsible for the design of structure nor was he aware of the status of permission as he had blindly relied upon broker and builder themselves who had assured the applicant about legalities of the structure. 5.1 Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant once again drew attention of the Court to statements of various witnesses to the effect of starting of fire on the second floor, with which the applicant has no connection. 6. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order. 7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:- I. The FIR is registered on 24.05.2019 for the offence which is alleged to have taken place on 24.05.2019. II. The applicant is in jail since 25.05.2019. III. Investigation is concluded and charge sheet is filed. IV. Submission of learned Senior Advocate for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since three and half years, where maximum sentence is of ten years. Moreover, qua some of the co-accused, trial has been stayed by this Court pursuant to their respective applications for discharge. V. Submission of learned Senior Advocate for the applicant that the applicant is young teacher belonging to teachers family, where parents are retired teachers and sister is also teacher. VI. Submission of learned Senior Advocate for the applicant that the incident was a fire incident where fire had begun from second floor and as per the FIR and investigation, fire spread to 4th floor through a combustible banner having from top to the lower floor which had resulted into quick fire spread and no time for escape for the students occupying classes of the applicant. VII. Submission of learned Senior Advocate for the applicant by drawing attention of the statement of witness who is a student to indicate role played by the applicant in saving children on his own risk. VIII. VII. Submission of learned Senior Advocate for the applicant by drawing attention of the statement of witness who is a student to indicate role played by the applicant in saving children on his own risk. VIII. Submission of learned Senior Advocate for the applicant that in all, there are 14 accused persons wherein remaining 13 persons have been enlarged on regular bail by this Court. Attention is drawn to the orders passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court at Annexure-F colly. in Criminal Misc.Application No.18327 of 2019 and other applications of the co-accused. IX. Submission of learned Senior Advocate for the applicant that 251 witnesses are cited and therefore, trial is likely to be prolonged, particularly where, for 4 accused, trial is stayed. X. Submission of learned Senior Advocate for the applicant that the applicant was tenant on the premises and those who are actually responsible for construction and making faulty structure with minimum escape root, i.e. builder and the corporation officers have already been enlarged on regular bail by the coordinate Bench. XI. Submission of learned Senior Advocate for the applicant that as is ordered in case of other coaccused, as a mitigating circumstance, the applicant is ready and willing to deposit an amount to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs. 8. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [2012]1 SCC 40. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 10. Hence, the present application is allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 10. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with I-CR No.246 of 2019 registered with Sarthana Police Station, Surat, on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall; (a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; (b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution & shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and shall not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police; (c) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week; (d) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Trial Court concerned; (e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in a month for a period of six months between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.; (f) furnish the present address of his 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 Trial Court; (g) to deposit an amount of Rs.10 lakhs with the trial Court within a period of two months of his release and to file an undertaking to this effect before this Court within a period of one week; 11. The authorities will release the applicant only if he 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 Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. 12. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law. 13. 12. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law. 13. At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. 14. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.