S.G. Shah, J. - (1.) HEARD learned advocate Mr. Nirav Padhiyar for the applicant, learned advocate Mr. M.B. Rana for respondent No. 2 and learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent No. 1 - State.
(2.) THE applicant - complainant has lodged a complaint before Deesa police station, which is registered as I -C.R. No. 169 of 2013 u/ss. 302, 323, 504 on 6.9.2013 contending that on the date of the incident, when they were going with their cattle near the village, the accused came in a jeep and when he could not get a clear road because of cattle of the complainant, he came out of the jeep with iron tomy and beat the victim, being father of the applicant - complainant on his forehead, which resulted into death of Dharjiji Jagshiji. It is further contended that when victim fell down by first blow, instead of helping the victim, the respondent No. 2 - accused has given further two to three blows, which resulted into death of the victim. Thereafter, complainant and his relatives called the ambulance from Deesa Government Dispensary. The name of respondent No. 2 - accused is disclosed in the FIR as veterinary Doctor - Dr. Mahendrasinh Chauhan. When police has initiated inquiry and arrested the accused No. 2, accused has preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 853 of 2013 before the Sessions Court at Deesa, which was allowed by impugned order dated 11.12.2013, whereby accused was granted regular bail on usual conditions. While deciding such application, the Sessions Court has observed that at the time of the incident, only the complainant was present and that attack by cudgel cannot be considered as an intentional attack to kill a person. While stating so, the Sessions Court has also considered the submission by the accused that, in fact, there was a vehicular accident because of the cattle, which were not handled by the complainant and when complainant and his cattle had dashed with the vehicle, two other persons have came with axe and sticks and thereupon accused apprehended beating by them and, therefore, he also took cudgel in his hand and in such scuffle, this incident occurred. It is further stated that there was no intention to kill the person and, therefore, after the incident, he had immediately went to the L.C.B office for disclosing such offence, where he was arrested. It is further submitted that accused is a Government Doctor and this is his first offence and there is no possibility of his abscondment and he would be available during the trial and that he would not tamper with the evidence. Therefore, bail was requested even by imposing strict conditions which he has agreed to abide. Thus, the sum and substance of the reason for releasing the accused on bail is to the effect that the incident had happened on sudden provocation and it was not a pre -planned murder.
(3.) BEING aggrieved by such order of bail, the applicant herein has contended that the gravity of offence is to be considered. It is further contended that granting of bail to the accused at first place, is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Though the investigation is yet not completed and though chargesheet is not filed and though there is clear evidence that respondent accused has given fatal blow to the victim, bail should not be granted and that though complainant has filed objection before the Sessions Court, same was not considered. It is further contended that even the investigating officer has filed an affidavit before the Sessions Court contending that a Senior Government Officer has committed such a serious offence and, therefore, he should not be released on bail. It is further contended that iron tomy has been recovered from the accused and that even complainant has received injuries.;