Facts of the case
- 14th January, 2007,Makar Sankranti Day, the complainant-JethaBhayaOdedara, the petitioner was sitting at the house of AbhaArjan, along with NavganArasi, Rama ArasiJadeja, Suresh SanghanOdedara and a few ladies of the house, named, AarsiMunja, Maliben and Puriben.
- At around 8.00 p.m. RamdeRajsiOdedara, one of the accused persons was alleged to have come to the place where the complainant was sitting and started using abusive language.
- He was asked not to do so, thereupon he left the place only to return a few minutes later with accused Punja Ram, Lakha Ram, Devsi Rama, VikramKeshuOdedara, GanguRanmal, VikramDevsiOdedara, RamdeRajsiOdedara and the respondent and some others armed with knives and a pistol which the respondent was allegedly carrying with him.
- The accused persons started abusing and assaulting the complainant and others who were sitting with him resulting in knife injuries to VikramKeshu, NavganArasi, Rama Arasi and Puriben.
- Respondent Ganga MaldebhaiOdedara is alleged to have fired multiple rounds from the pistol in the air exhorting his companions to kill the complainant and others with him.
- NavganArasi died in the hospital on account of the injuries sustained by him.
- F.I.R. was registered against the respondent and his companions for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 507 (2) of IPC read with Section 25(1) of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
- With the death of the deceased, NavganArasi, in due course the investigation was completed and a charge sheet for the offences mentioned above filed before the Sessions Judge, who made over the case to Fast Track Court for trial and disposal in accordance with law.
- An application was then filed by the respondent before the trial Court for grant of bail which was opposed by the prosecution and eventually dismissed by its order.
- Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court the respondent filed Criminal Misc. Application before the High Court.
- The High Court has without scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence in detail come to the conclusion that the respondent had made out a case for grant of bail. The High Court also noticed the fact that no injury was caused with the help of the firearm which the respondent was allegedly carrying with him. The High Court accordingly allowed the application subject to the condition that the respondent shall not take undue advantage of his liberty, tamper with or pressurize the witnesses and that he shall maintain law and order and mark his presence before the concerned police station once in a month. He was also directed to surrender his passport and not to enter Taluka limits for a period of six months.
- Appellant filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.
Judgment
The Supreme Court stated that, “It is not the case of the complainant that the respondent has during this period either tried to tamper with the evidence or committed any other act that may affect the fairness of the trial. Equally significant is the fact that there was no gunshot injury to either the complainant or the deceased or any other person involved in the incident. In the circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the prosecution shall be free to apply for cancellation of bail should the respondent fail to comply with any of the conditions imposed upon him by the High Court in the order under challenge, we are not inclined to interfere with the order granting bail at this stage.“
The special leave petition was dismissed.
BY: ANKIT RAJPUT