Shankerbhai @ Shakkariyabhai Virsinh @ Viriyabhai Meda vs State Of Gujarat

B.N. Karia, J

Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondentÂ​state.

By way of present application, applicant has approached this Court by way of Successive Bail application with a request to release him on bail in

connection with F.I.R. being C.R. No.IÂ13 of 2019 registered with Dhanpur Police Station, Dist Dahod for the offence punishable under Section

302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the respondentÂ​State.

Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the deposition of the complainant Jyotikaben W/o, Navalsinh Meda was recorded on 04.12.2019 and

in her cross examination, the complainant has accepted the fact that she does have any information and knowledge that how her daughter passed

away and who killed her. That the applicant is absolutely innocent person and is falsely implicated in the alleged offences. That there is no prima facie

case against the present applicant. That none of the ingredients of the aforesaid alleged offences are made out qua the present applicant. That the

statements of witnesses recorded during investigation are not supporting the prosecution case. That the charge sheet has been submitted in this

matter. That complainant has filed her affidavit vide AnnexureÂD raising no objection if the present applicant is released on bail, hence it is requested

by learned advocate for the applicant to enlarge the present applicant on bail on account of change of circumstances after withdrawal of his previous

application being Criminal Misc. Application No.2420 of 2020.

Learned APP for the respondentÂstate has strongly objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant and drawn attention of this

Court towards deposition of prosecution witness Jyotikaben Navalsinh Meda recorded by the Sessions Court concerned on 04.12.2019 as well as

order dated 27.07.2020 passed by this Court in previous application preferred by the present applicant being Criminal Misc. Application No. 2420 of

2020 and submitted that after recording evidence of prosecution witness Jyotikaben Navalsinh Meda, present applicant had approached this Court by

filing Criminal Misc. Application No.2420 of 2020, which was simply withdrawn on 27.07.2020. That chargeÂsheet was also filed and recording

evidence of the prosecution witnesses was also started by the prosecution before the Sessions Court concerned. That there are no change of

circumstances or new grounds available with the present applicant to accept the prayer for releasing him on bail. That previous application was

already simply withdrawn without any liberty. That affidavit of the complainant cannot be considered by this Court as the trial is pending against the

present applicant. As there is no change of circumstances or fresh grounds available with the present applicant. Hence, it is requested by learned

APP for the respondentÂ​State to dismiss present application.

Having considered the facts of the case and submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the respondentÂState, it

appears from the order passed by this Court on 27.07.2020 in Criminal Misc. Application No.2420 of 2020, on a request being made by learned

advocate for the applicant, applicant was permitted to withdraw such application and it was disposed of as withdrawn. Before the disposing previous

application preferred by the present applicant deposition of prosecution witness Jyotikaben Navalsinh Meda was already recorded before the Sessions

Court in Sessions Case No.40 of 2019 on 04.12.2019 wherein she has not supported the prosecution, and therefore, affidavit of the complainant

namely Jyotikaben Navalsinh Meda has been filed by the present applicant vide Annexure ÂD wherein she has stated that in gloomy stage of the

knowledge of the death of her younger daughter, she was told false stories by interested persons against her fatherÂinÂlaw without a calm mind and

properly weighing and she made a grave mistake of filing a complaint against her fatherÂinÂlaw as her fatherÂinÂlaw was falsely implicated in

murderous act. As stated above, on the same ground of not starting prosecution case by the prosecution in Sessions Case No.40 of 2019 was

considered by this Court as appreciation of evidence is not applicable at this juncture by the Court and as previous application was withdrawn simply

by the applicant on 27.07.2020, the applicant cannot be permitted to raise this ground of not staring prosecution case nor this Court would appreciate

the deposition of the original complainant recorded before the Sessions Court concerned. Appreciation of evidence of the prosecution witnesses should

be made by the Sessions court itself. Affidavit submitted before this Court is the subsequent thought by the present applicant as she is daughterÂinÂ‐

law of the present applicant. Present applicant is the fatherÂinÂlaw of the original complainant and deceased daughter was the grand daughter of the

present applicant, against whom, serious allegations of committing her murder were made by the daughterÂinÂlaw in her complaint before the police.

It is not the fit case to exercise the power to release the applicant on bail as prayed by the present applicant in the present successive bail application

preferred by the present applicant.

In view of the above reasons, present application stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged.