Pranav Ashokbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat

Alpesh Y. Kogje, J

This application is filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR being I-CR No. 134 of 2019 before Sarkhej Police Station, Ahmedabad for offences under Sections 307, 324, 323, 294(KH) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that considering the nature of offence, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions. It is submitted that the applicant is only aged 19 years and a student.

2.1. It is submitted that the applicant himself had no dispute with the injured and the complainant, but it was a dispute between the complainant and friend of the applicant with regard to making of payment. It is submitted that the applicant was not at the place of offence from beginning, but had arrived later on.

2.2. It is submitted that co-accused have been enlarged on regular bail/anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has opposed this application and granting anticipatory bail to the applicant looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that the offence is of such a nature where youngsters are involved in brawl creating law and order problem. It is submitted that such incidents are on the rise where at the drop of hat, persons lime the applicant-accused do not think twice before moving around with dangerous weapons and assault and inflict injuries of serious nature.

Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, perused investigation papers and also taken into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the applicant-accused. The incident has occurred on 17.09.2019, wherein the accused in this case started abusing Meet Harshadbhai Patel in public about collection of Rs. 5000/- at about 11:15 pm yesterday on 17/09/2019, near mauje Sindhu Bhavan road, opposite old crush cafe. Meet Harshadbhai Patel is son of paternal uncle of the complainant. The accused Deep and accused Raj held the witness Meet and accused Pranav inflicted a blow of knife which was in his possession to Meet on the left side of chest. When the complainant Nirav Patel intervened to free him, the accused inflicted blow of knife to Nirav on palms of both his hands, left side of his head and left upper side of waist and caused grave injuries and fled.

5 . The injury received by the injured witness is on the vital part of the body, i.e. chest. The medical case papers indicate injuries to injured witness Harshad Patel of laceration over anterior aspect of left side of chest just below nipple having dimension of 4X3X2 cm, which is a grievous injury. The complainant Dinesh Patel received injuries of (1) stab wound over pulsar aspect of left hand just below the thumb of 4X2X0.1 cm, (2) stab wound over left flank of 3X1X0.1 cm, (3) stab wound over left parietal aspect of scalp of 1X0.1X0.1 cm and (4) abrasion over right hand. Out of these four injuries, first three injuries are of grievous nature. The history given by such witnesses indicates manner in which they were assaulted with weapons.

6 . The investigation case papers contain version of the eyewitnesses and also indicate manner in which offence has taken place. The relevant portion of the statement reads as under:-

"Later, Deep's friend Raj Harshadbhai Shah, who resides at Satellite area and his complete address is not known to me, had come there on his activa. His friend Pranav Ashokbhai Patel, who resides at Satadhar, Ghatlodiya and his complete address is not known to me, was on backseat of his activa. Deep Jain was talking to my friend Meet after taking him to a side at some distance from us. At this time, Deep, Raj and Pranav started using abusive words to Meet. When the altercation was going on, Deep and Raj caught hold of Meet. Pranav had taken a knife out of his trouser pocket and was saying to Meet that "Don't you want to give money? Today, I will finish you". Saying so, he inflicted a knife blow on left side of his chest with the knife. Therefore, I, Nirav and Jigar ran over there to free him. With both of his hands Nirav caught the knife which was in Pranav's hand. When Pranav pulled the knife with force, he sustained injuries of knife between his thumb and fingers. Thereafter, these three persons had caused injury to Nirav on left side of his head, using the knife. The other injury was caused to me on the left side of abdomen above the waist. Thereafter, Deep and Raj gave kick and fist blows to Nirav and Meet. At this time, when I shouted, these three persons fled from there as persons from surrounding had gathered. As I and Meet have been caused fatal injuries by this Pranav Ashokbhai Patel, using a knife, I and Jigar Thakkar had brought two of us in his car at Zydus Hospital for treatment. Nirav has been admitted and is being treated at bed no. 892 on eighth floor of the hospital. Meet has been admitted to the Emergency Ward at sixth floor. Both of them are under treatment."

7 . The manner in which the offence is described and having taken place, attributes role to the applicant of having inflicted knife blow in open public on vital part of the body and therefore, outweighs any sympathy for the applicant, who claims to be a young boy of 19 years and a student. The Court from the investigation case papers finds that it is not a case of false or over-implication and overt act attributed to the applicant clearly surfaces on record.

The manner in which incident has taken place, the act can be termed as notorious act and the illegal activities referred to in the FIR need to be curbed and not to be encouraged to say the least.

This Court is of the view that the Sessions Court has assigned cogent reasons for not entertaining the application. This Court is also of the view that in the facts of the case, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary.

In view of the aforesaid, no case is made out to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. The application deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.