NATHABHAI JERAMBHAI VADHER Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-2020-4-37
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on April 30,2020

Nathabhai Jerambhai Vadher Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Rule. Learned APP waives service. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent-State and learned Counsel for the original complainant. Appearance of Mr. Vicky Mehta for the complainant be recorded and reply shall be taken on record.
(2.) This application is filed seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 324 , 143 , 147 , 148 , 149 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for which FIR came to be registered at C.R. No.A/11208002200050 of 2020 with Aji Dam Police Station, Rajkot City.
(3.) Considering the rival submissions, it appears that the petitioner is sought to be implicated as conspirator on the basis of the statements of two witnesses having been recorded after about one month of the incident wherein the witnesses are quoted saying that one or two Darbars should be done away with. The dispute is in relation to a piece of land which seems to have travelled upto the Apex Court. The learned Counsel Mr. Vicky Mehta has drawn attention of this Court to the long drawn civil litigation which ended in the apex court as above. He has pointed out that eventually the contempt proceeding were initiated against the applicant who then agreed before the apex Court to handover the possession of the disputed property to the complainant but did not abide by the said assurance and eventually conspired with the other accused not to handover the possession of the disputed land and if necessary to do away one or more Darbars. Learned counsel also drew attention of this Court to the statement of the two witnesses wherein aforesaid assertions are made. Insofar as the civil litigations are concerned, in the opinion of this Court at this stage the occurrence therein would not be relevant for denial of the bail to the applicant and insofar as the statements implicating the applicant in a criminal conspiracy are concerned, the conspiracy would be required to be proved; however prima facie, the statements in the opinion of this Court at this stage are insufficient for denying the bail to the accused particularly when he was not present at the time of incident; nor is there any material; except the two statements as above, to connect him to the conspiracy and the role played by him in acting on the conspiracy. The age of the accused is 65 years. Thus, the case for admitting the petitioner to bail is made out. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.