Regular bail granted to applicant charged under IPC Sections 302, 143-149 despite serious allegations

Gujarat HC granted regular bail to applicant charged under IPC Sections 302, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 341, 384, 120B, 506, 34, Arms Act provisions, and Gujarat Police Act Section 135 for May 9, 2020 incident. Court noted complainant's subsequent statement dated June 3, 2020 omitted overt acts attributed in FIR and provided different chronology of events. Despite applicant's presence being mentioned, no specific role was attributed in later statement. Considering case facts, allegations nature, and offences gravity, HC exercised discretion to grant bail on personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with surety.

---

---

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.

---