Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA/13737/2009 2/ 4 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] - Applicant(s) Versus [ENTITY] - Respondent(s) Appearance : MR [ENTITY], SR.ADVOCATE WITH MR [ENTITY] for Applicant(s) : 1, MS [ENTITY], ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Date : 20/01/2010 ORAL ORDER
This is an application preferred under [SECTION] of the [ACT], by the applicant who came to be arrested in connection with [CASE NUMBER] registered with Lalpur police station for the offence punishable under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT].
2. Mr. [ENTITY], learned Sr. Advocate appearing with Mr. [ENTITY], appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and there is no material or evidence worth the name connecting him with the commission of offence in question. The applicant is in jail since almost four months and charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter, therefore, considering the role attributed to the applicant and as the other accused persons are released on bail, he also be enlarged on bail. Learned advocate placed reliance on the following judgments in support of the submissions canvassed at bar.
[1] [PRECEDENT]
[2] [PRECEDENT].
[3] [PRECEDENT].
[4] [PRECEDENT].
[5] [PRECEDENT].
Learned advocate submitted that considering the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the above judgments, case of the applicant requires consideration and he be enlarged on bail as prayed for in the application.
3. Learned APP Ms. [ENTITY], representing the opponent-State, while opposing the bail application submitted that the applicant is involved in serious offence punishable under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT] along with other accused persons. The applicant used to inflict mental and physical torture on the deceased which ultimately led her to commit suicide within the meaning of [SECTION] of [ACT]. Marriage span of the applicant with the deceased was approximately of three years. Learned APP, placing reliance on the reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge in the order dated 16th October, 2009 passed in [CASE NUMBER] submitted that the learned Judge has rightly observed that considering the marriage span of three years, provisions of [SECTION] of [ACT] can be invoked and presumption can be raised against the accused. Thus, considering the role attributed to the applicant and reflected in FIR and other material on record of the case, no interference is called for and the application deserves to be rejected. Learned APP also submitted that the case of the applicant is already committed to the Sessions Court and charge is framed against the applicant and other accused persons on 4.1.2009 and summons have been issued by the Sessions Court on 16.1.2010 to the witnesses. Considering the aforesaid aspect, trial would now commence and the matter would come to an end as soon as the witnesses are examined. It is, therefore, submitted that considering the aforesaid aspects, the application does not call for interference and the same be dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the opponent State at length and in great detail. I have considered the submissions made in the application, role attributed to the applicant and reflected in FIR at Annexure:A to the application. I have also considered the judgments cited by the learned advocate for the applicant. There is no dispute about the ratio or proposition laid down in those judgments as well as the fact that the case is committed to Sessions Court and charge is already framed in the matter and summons also have already been issued to the witnesses by the Sessions Court. It has been stated in FIR by [ENTITY] who is mother of the deceased that applicant used to inflict mental and physical torture on the deceased and she was severely beaten by the applicant. Considering the mental and physical torture inflicted by the applicant on the deceased which is clearly mentioned in the FIR given by [ENTITY], the deceased was persistently tortured by her inlaws, which ultimately left her with no option but to commit suicide within the meaning of [SECTION] of [ACT]. The applicant is the main culprit who persistently harassed the deceased and on six to seven occasions the deceased was severely beaten. Thus, considering the involvement of the applicant in the alleged commission of offence, nature of offence, and the manner in which he has committed the offence punishable under [SECTION] of [ACT], no lenient view be taken in the matter and the application deserves to be dismissed. The application is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[H.B. ANTANI, J.] pirzada/-