Goswami Lalgar Shankergar vs State Of Gujarat & Anr

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned Advocate Mr. Kalrav Patel for the appellants, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Ashmita Patel on behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr. Tushar Choudhary for the original complainant, respondent No.2 herein.

Rule. Learned APP Ms. Patel waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

The present appellants having been arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3 in the FIR bearing C.R. No.11993013250247/2025 registered with Kandla Marine Police Station, Kachchh for the offences punishable under Sections 74, 115(2), 125(A), 296(B), 54, 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 3(1)(w)(1), 3(2)(5-a), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, have approached this Court inter alia seeking for anticipatory bail.

Learned advocate Mr. Patel for the appellants would submit that while the FIR inter alia states about the alleged role attributed to the present appellants in the offences concerned, yet a perusal of the FIR itself reveals that the present incident had taken place, when the senior persons from the village were trying to settle the issue between the present complainant as well as the accused with regard to an earlier incident.

Learned advocate Mr. Patel would submit that as such, the entire issued had happened on account of misunderstanding between the parties and whereas the accused and the complainant, all are residing in the same village and whereas the village persons have prevailed upon the parties and now, the parties have settled the same inter se.

Learned advocate would submit that under such circumstances, this Court may consider to releasing the present appellants on anticipatory bail.

Version of the learned advocate for the appellants is supported by learned advocate Mr. Choudhary for the respondent No.2 – original complainant, who would submit that the parties had inter se settled the dispute and whereas it is further submitted that the complainant is present in the Court and whereas the complainant has no objection, if the present appellants are released on anticipatory bail.

Learned APP Ms. Patel on behalf of the respondent State would submit that she has verified the identity of the complainant, who is present in the Court and whereas learned APP would submit that since parties are stated to have settled dispute inter se, this Court may pass appropriate order.

Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties, the following aspects are considered by this Court:

(i) The fact of present incident having taken place that once the villagers had gathered to settle an earlier dispute between the parties.

(ii) The fact of the complainant as well as the accused belonging to the same village and parties having settled inter se.

(iii) The fact of the complainant having remained present before this Court and having confirmed the aspect of with regard to the settlement.

(iv) The fact of the allegations being with regard to assault etc. and having used a derogatory term and whereas it does not appear that the incident was premeditated and whereas prima facie, it appears that the incident had happened in the spur of the moment.

(vi) The affidavits of the complainant and two victims are taken record, whereby they have supported the version of the settlement.

In this view of the matter and considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011)1 SCC 694, this Court is inclined to consider this application.

In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of appellants herein being arrested pursuant to the FIR No. C.R. No.11993013250247/2025 registered with Kandla Marine Police Station, Kachchh the appellants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with one surety of like amount, on the following conditions:

(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required;

(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 12.11.2025 between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;

(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the Police;

(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change their residence till the final disposal of the case or till further orders;

(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if having passports shall surrender the same before the Trial Court within a week.

At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court, while enlarging the appellants on bail. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted.