Krishnakumarsinh @ Kripalsinh @ Kavo Mahipalsinh Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned Advocate Mr. Jay J. Jani on behalf for the appellant and learned APP Mr. L. B. Dabhi on behalf of the respondent-State, learned Advocate Mr. Premal Rachh on behalf of the respondent no. 2.

By way of this appeal filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection with F.I.R. bearing C. R. No. 11202014210117 of 2021 registered with Dhrol Police Station, Dist. Jamnagar on 12.03.2021 for offences punishable under Sections 395, 397 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(S) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act.

Learned Advocate Mr. Jani on behalf of the applicant would submit that as such while serious offences as punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code have been alleged by the first informant, according to learned Advocate Mr. Jani the allegations appear to be untrue, more particularly, if it is appreciated that the incident in question had happened at the agricultural farm of the first informant and whereas the first informant is stated to be carrying around Rs. 70,000/-cash while he was present at the agricultural farm. Learned Advocate Mr. Jani would further submit that while it is true that injuries have been caused to the first informant but at the same time, learned Advocate Mr. Jani would submit have been attributed to the other accused and not to the present applicant. Learned Advocate Mr. Jani would further submit that the present applicant is in custody since 14.03.2021 and considering that the applicant has already under gone more than 15 months in custody, this Court may consider the present application.

This application is vehemently objected to by learned APP Mr. Dabhi who would submit that at this stage, the contention of the learned Advocate that whether the applicant was carrying such amount of cash or not, may not be appreciated by this Court in absence of evidence being lead in that regard. Learned APP Mr. Dabhi would further submit that in any case while the injuries may not have been attributed to any assault by the applicant himself, but at the same time, it was at the instruction and behest of the present applicant that the injuries have been caused. Considering the same, learned APP Mr. Dabhi would submit that this Court may not release the present applicant.

Learned Advocate Mr. Rachh while reiterating the submissions made by learned APP Mr. Dabhi would submit that investigation inter alia reveals that the present applicant had co-ordinated the entire assault and whereas the same of the other accused, had been hired at the behest of the present applicant. Having regard to the same, learned Advocate Mr. Rachh would submit that this Court may not exercise jurisdiction in favour of the present applicant.

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

[1] While there are allegations of offences punishable under Indian Penal Code and the Atrocities Act, it appears that as far as the allegations under the atrocities Act are concerned, they may not be invokable, more particularly, since it appears that the present applicant and the first informant – victim, were partners in a business and whereas such a partnership would not have been possible if the present applicant had any grudge against the members of the particular community.

[2] The fact that the allegations of offence punishable under Sections 395 and 397 prima facie not appearing to be true since the present applicant who had just gone to sleep at his agricultural farm that to in a village, for no reason, prima facie would not carry an amount of Rs. 70,000/- with him.

[3] It also appears that learned Co-ordinate Bench vide an order dated 05.04.2022 while releasing co-accused on regular bail had also inter alia observed that the allegation with regard to looting, does not appear to be correct.

[4] It also appears that the learned Co-ordinate Bench has also observed that injuries caused to the first informant were also no so serious.

[5] This Court has also considered the fact that the applicant is in custody from 14.03.2021.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegations made in the FIR and without discussing the evidence in details as well as without going into details, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion to enlarge the appellant on bail.

Hence, the application is allowed and the appellant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with C. R. No. 11202014210117 of 2021 registered with Dhrol Police Station, Dist. Jamnagar on executing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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 injuries to the interest of the prosecution;

[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;

[e] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Officer concerned;

[f] mark presence before the concerned Police Station once every month for a period of next six months.

The Authorities will release the appellant 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. 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. 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 appellant on bail. Direct service is permitted.