ORDER : 1. By way of the present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the ‘Act 1989’) the appellant- original accused has prayed to release him on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11198015231655 of 2023 registered with Bortalav Police Station, Bhavnagar. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under: 2.1 The FIR in question came to be registered at the instance of one Geetaben Kishorbhai Maru. The complainant has stated that about 6.00 p.m. in the evening when she had gone to purchase bidi for her husband, at that time the complainant saw the present appellant, his friend and two other persons armed with iron pipe and they were abusing her and the present appellant and his friend Rohan informed her to settle the dispute that about three years ago an FIR which was registered by her son against the present appellant. All these four persons started assaulting the complainant with the iron pipe and damaged the CCTV at the shop and the complainant was shouting. On hearing the shouts, the husband and daughter of the complainant arrived and these four persons escaped and threatened to kill the complainant if the complainant did not settle the matter. Thereafter, the FIR in question came to be filed. Hence the present appeal. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. V.A. Zala appearing for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. Jay Shah appearing for the husband of the original complainant and learned APP appearing for the respondent-State. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Zala appearing for the appellant while referring to charge-sheet papers would submit that omnibus allegations are made in the FIR as well as in the charge-sheet. He would further submit that no specific role is attributed to the present appellant either in the FIR or in the charge-sheet. He would submit that according to FIR and charge-sheet, four persons namely Shailesh Dhanji Koli, Rohan Shambhu Koli and two unidentified persons came with iron pipes and assaulted on the deceased. However, there is no mention that which kind of blow has been given by the present appellant to the deceased. Learned advocate would further submit that cause of death has been kept pending by the doctors who have conducted autopsy of the body of the deceased. However, there is no mention that which kind of blow has been given by the present appellant to the deceased. Learned advocate would further submit that cause of death has been kept pending by the doctors who have conducted autopsy of the body of the deceased. So even the medical officers are not confirmed about the cause of death of the deceased. Therefore, it is highly doubtful that the deceased has been died because of injuries which were alleged to have been caused by the appellant and other accused. He would further submit that perusal of the FIR would not indicate that on any vital part of the body of the deceased, injury was caused by the appellant. In addition to the above, learned advocate for the appellant would submit that investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed. Thus, entire evidence is in the safe hands of the prosecution. The appellant is ready and willing to abide by any condition which may be imposed by this Court while enlarging the accused on bail. Upon above submissions, learned advocate for the appellant seeks to grant regular bail to the present appellant. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Jay Shah for husband of complainant and learned APP for the respondent State have vociferously objected grant of this appeal seeking regular bail. The appellant has by iron pipe given blow on the different parts of body of the deceased which caused to death of the deceased which is indicated in the postmortem report. The heinous act of murder has been committed by the appellant which is noted in the FIR which is given by the deceased herself. Moreover, the deceased was beaten for the purpose of pressurizing her to withdraw the earlier criminal complaint. So the allegations indicate that appellant and other accused are highhanded persons. The charge-sheet filed in the offence indicates that the allegations made against the appellant are sufficiently taken and merely on the filing of the charge-sheet, the appellant shall not be granted regular bail. 6. Upon above submissions, they have urged to dismiss this appeal. 7. I have given anxious thought to the rival submissions as well as material placed on record including the charge-sheet papers. 6. Upon above submissions, they have urged to dismiss this appeal. 7. I have given anxious thought to the rival submissions as well as material placed on record including the charge-sheet papers. At the outset, it is to be noted that the FIR is given by the deceased Gitaben Kishorbhai Maru wherein she has clearly mentioned the names of the present appellant as well as Rohan Shambhau Khodi and two unidentified persons. She has also alleged that all four persons came together and after saying filthy and derogatory words pressurized her to compromise in respect of FIR/complaint given by her earlier and when the deceased denied to compromise, the present appellant and other accused got aggravated. They mercilessly started beating the deceased with the iron pipes which they were holding and they also ransacked the CCTV camera near to the shop and also pressurized the shopkeepers and three persons on the spot. She has also alleged that she started shouting for help and on hearing her shouts, her husband and daughter came there and then the present appellant and three other persons ran away from the spot. On reading the FIR, what appears that the deceased has clearly stated the entire chronology of the incident. Later on she succumbed to the injuries and therefore, offence under Section 302 IPC is also added. The statement in the form of FIR recorded by the concerned Police in this eventuality takes the shape of dying declaration. The statement in the form of FIR made by the deceased who later on died is regard to her cause of death and therefore, prima facie Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act is attracted. Prima facie the FIR value as it being trustworthy more particularly in view of Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act and in that way prima facie case is established. The statements of the other witnesses recorded during the investigation also prima-face support the FIR. The statement of Manishbhai Shankarbhai Nandva recorded on 27.11.2023 who is eye-witness supports the case of the prosecution. The Discovery Panchnama and Inquest Panchnama also support the case of the prosecution. 8. It was submitted by learned advocate for the appellant that the injuries caused to the deceased are not on vital part of the body of the deceased and the doctors who have conducted autopsy have not formed opinion on the cause of death. The Discovery Panchnama and Inquest Panchnama also support the case of the prosecution. 8. It was submitted by learned advocate for the appellant that the injuries caused to the deceased are not on vital part of the body of the deceased and the doctors who have conducted autopsy have not formed opinion on the cause of death. At this juncture, I may refer to the injuries noted by the doctors who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. In Para 17 of the postmortem report following injuries are noted: “17. INJURIES: 1. 1.5 cm oblique scratch abrasion at left nostril upper 1/3rd. 2. 3 x 2 cm pressure abrasion at left cheek, 2 cm below left eye outer end. 3. 3 x 1 cm pressure abrasion at back of left elbow. 4. 6 x 2 cm x bone deep vertical contusion at left forearm upper 2/3rd front inner side, underlying ulna displaced fractured in 3 parts. 5. 3 x 0.5 cm x muscle deep contusion at left forearm lower 1/3rd inner side. 6. 21 x 21 cm area from left buttock lower half to left thigh upper 1/3rd diffusely contused, within it, 8 tramline contusion of varying in size from 3 x 2.5 cm to 7 x 2.5 cm are identifiable. 7. 12 x 7 cm x muscle deep oblique contusion at left thigh middle 1/3rd outer side. 8. 13 x 3.5 cm x muscle deep oblique contusion at left thigh lower 1/4th front outer side. 9. 21 x 21 cm of size area of left leg upper 2/3rd back and outer side is diffusely contused, underlying displaced fracture of left fibula head. 10. 13 x 8 cm x bone deep vertical contusion at left leg front lower half, within it, a 2 cm long, two surgical stiches present 2.5 cm vertically apart, underlying displaced fracture of left shaft of tibia and fibula. 11. 30 x 22 cm of size area from right buttock lower half to right thigh upper 1/3” diffusely contused, within it, 4 tramline contusion of varying in size from 4 x 2.5 cm to 13 x 4 cm are identifiable. 12. 38 x 30 cm of size area from right thigh lower 1/3rd to right leg upper 2/3rd back and inner side diffusely contused, within it, 6 tramline contusion of varying in size from 5 x 2.5 cm to 7 x 3 cm are identifiable. 12. 38 x 30 cm of size area from right thigh lower 1/3rd to right leg upper 2/3rd back and inner side diffusely contused, within it, 6 tramline contusion of varying in size from 5 x 2.5 cm to 7 x 3 cm are identifiable. 13. 8 x 2 cm x muscle deep contusion at front of right leg upper 1/3rd, within it, 1 surgical stich present in middle.” 9. What appears from reading as many as thirteen injuries caused to the body of the deceased demonstrates that she was mercilessly beaten and almost all parts of the body have received injuries. It would be gainsaying that since the deceased has not received injury on her head, she has not received injury on vital part of her body. I may refer to the opinion part of the postmortem report, which reads as under: “23. OPINION Nature of Injury: Ante-mortem, fresh, caused by blunt force. Injuries found on the body are sufficient to caused death. Cause of death: “Kept pending awaiting Histopathology examination reports.” 10. A clear finding has been given by Assistant Professor, Depart of Forensic Medicine, Sir T. General Hospital, Bhavnagar along with Resident Doctor, Department of Forensic Medicine, that all the injuries noted in column No. 17 were ante-moretem, fresh and caused by blunt force. The doctors have found these injuries on the body are sufficient to cause death. On course, cause of death has been kept pending awaiting Histopathology examination reports but that itself cannot suggest that she was not died due to blunt force used upon her by way of iron pipes. 11. At this juncture, I may refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State through Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Amarmani Tripathi, 2005 (8) SCC 21 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “18. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence. (ii) nature and gravity of the charge. (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction. (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail. (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused. (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated. (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with. (ii) nature and gravity of the charge. (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction. (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail. (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused. (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated. (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with. (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail [See Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi, 2001 (4) SCC 280 and Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 SC 179 ]. While a vague allegation that accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004 (7) SCC 528 : “The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non- application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. [See Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh, 2002 (3) SCC 598 and Puran vs. Ram Bilas, 2001 (6) SCC 338 ].” This Court also in specific terms held that: “the condition laid down under section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for granting bail even under section 439 of the Code. In the impugned order it is noticed that the High Court has given the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near future as grounds sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused stands charged of offences punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the period he was on bail.” 19. In Panchanan Mishra vs. Digambar Mishra, 2005 (3) SCC 143 , this Court observed: “The object underlying the cancellation of bail is to protect the fair trial and secure justice being done to the society by preventing the accused who is set at liberty by the bail order from tampering with the evidence in the heinous crime.......It hardly requires to be stated that once a person is released on bail in serious criminal cases where the punishment is quite stringent and deterrent, the accused in order to get away from the clutches of the same indulge in various activities like tampering with the prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased victim and also create problems of law and order situation.” 12. I may also refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in another case of Jai Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihar and Another, 2012 Cri. I may also refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in another case of Jai Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihar and Another, 2012 Cri. L.J. 2101, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “The court may not exercise its discretion in derogation of established principles of law, rather it has to be in strict adherence to them. Discretion has to be guided by law, duly governed by rule and cannot be arbitrary, fanciful or vague. The court must not yield to spasmodic sentiment to unregulated benevolence.” 13. This is a serious offence committed by the appellant wherein in a day light a lady has been merciless beaten which caused her death. The incident took place when the appellant and others tried to pressurize the appellant to arrive at compromise in case of earlier complaint filed her. Considering the gravity of the offence and the role played by the appellant, no case is made out to grant regular bail to the appellant. Hence, the present appeal stands rejected. Notice stands discharged.