2020 (10) TMI 1375 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of Regular bail - conspiracy - murder - HELD THAT - It appears that though the name of the applicant is shown in the FIR for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302 143 144 147 148 149 341 384 120B 506 and 34 of the I.P.C. offence punishable under Section 25(1-b)A 27 and 29 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act for the incident which took place on 9th May 2020 on perusal of the charge-sheet papers it appears that the complainant in the subsequent statement dated 3rd June 2020 which has been recorded after 25 days from the date of incident the overt tact which was attributed in the FIR is missing. Though the complainant has stated that the applicant was present but no role is attributed in the subsequent statement which was recorded on 3rd June 2020 wherein the details with regard to chronology of events which took place at the place of the incident on 9th May 2020 is in effect substituted by the complainant in the additional statement dated 3rd June 2020 by narrating altogether different details. Perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case nature of allegations gravity of offences role attributed to the accused without discussing the evidence in detail this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR being I-C.R. No. 11993005200314 of 2020 dated 9th May 2020 registered with Adesar Police Station Bhachau District Kutch on executing a personal bond of Rs. 10, 000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions imposed - bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for multiple serious offenses including murder, conspiracy, and Arms Act violations based on an incident dated 9th May 2020.

Analysis:
The applicant filed a bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC after a charge-sheet was filed for various offenses, including Sections 302, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 341, 384, 120B, 506, and 34 of the IPC, along with Arms Act and Gujarat Police Act violations. The applicant's counsel argued that discrepancies existed between the initial complaint and subsequent statements by the complainant and witnesses, indicating the applicant's limited involvement in the incident. The defense highlighted that no blood marks were found on the applicant's clothes or stick recovered from him, and a representation was made asserting the applicant's absence at the crime scene. Additionally, a police constable's statement suggested the applicant's false implication due to past enmity and a scuffle preceding the incident.

The prosecution opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges, including murder and conspiracy, against the applicant. They pointed out the applicant's presence in the FIR and his alleged role in the crime, supported by his antecedents with previous offenses. The complainant's consistent statements regarding the applicant's presence at the scene were cited as evidence of his involvement in the conspiracy to harm the complainant's side. The prosecution argued that releasing the applicant on bail could lead to a breach of peace due to his antecedents and the gravity of the offenses.

After considering the arguments and evidence, the Court noted the discrepancies in the statements and the lack of overt involvement by the applicant in the subsequent version of events. The Court refrained from delving into the incident's details to avoid prejudicing the trial but observed the applicant's likely involvement due to previous enmity and pending proceedings. Balancing the facts, gravity of the offenses, and the applicant's prolonged incarceration, the Court exercised discretion to grant bail, citing the need for a fair trial and the precedent set by the Supreme Court. The bail was granted with specific conditions to ensure the applicant's compliance and appearance during the trial, emphasizing that the order pertained solely to the applicant's case and should not set a precedent for others accused in similar circumstances.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the bail application, ordering the applicant's release on bail upon fulfilling specified conditions and cautioning against breaching the set terms. The Court directed the authorities to ensure the applicant's release only if not required for other offenses, with provisions for the Sessions Judge to take appropriate action in case of non-compliance. The Court emphasized that its observations in the bail order should not influence the trial court's proceedings and communicated the decision to the relevant authorities for implementation.