JAYNARAYAN RAMESHVARDAYAL SHREEVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Liberty is to be secured through process of law, which is administered keeping in mind the interests of the accused, the near and dear of the victim who lost his life and who feel helpless and believe that there is no justice in the world as also the collective interest of the community so that parties do not lose faith in the institution and indulge in private retribution. [Extracted from AIR 1987 SC 1613 in case of Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and others] Heard learned advocate Mr. A. M. Mehta for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. S.K. Patel who is appearing for the respondent State and learned advocate Mr. Yatin Soni who has appeared on behalf of the original complainant. He has filed affidavit on behalf of the original complainant Bhavesh Manibhai Parekh for opposing the present application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners herein. Copy thereof has been served to the learned advocate Mr. A.M. Mehta for the petitioners as well as the learned APP Mr. S.K. Patel for the State.

(2.) Petitioner No.1 is residing at Vankaner and is serving as Police Inspector at the Vankaner Police Station whereas the remaining petitioners are also residing at Vankaner and are serving as Police Constable. Annexure "H" to the present petition is the FIR in connection with the incident dated 16th February, 2001 reported before the police station on 17th February, 2001 against the petitioners herein for the offence under section 504, 506 (1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and section 13 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Said complaint has been filed by one Bhavesh Manilal Parekh. In connection with the said complaint filed by Bhavesh M. Parekh, the petitioners herein initially approached the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Rajkot by filing an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was numbered as Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 225 of 2001. Said application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short) was heard and decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot who, vide his order dated 28th March, 2001 has rejected the said application. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the present petition for anticipatory bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C.

(3.) I have heard the learned advocate Mr. A.M. Mehta for the petitioners. He has submitted that the incident occurred on 16.2.2001; it was reported before the concerned police station on 17th February, 2001 and actually the present petitioners went to Rajkot from Vankaner alongwith the accused Asif to inquire about the gold with Bharatbhai Vijaybhai Soni. Thereafter, upon receipt of the information i.e. name from Bharatbhai, they had gone for further investigation to Manibhai Parekh. According to the complainant, at that time, the present petitioner No.1 had abused, mentally tortured and defamed said Manibhai Parekh, father of the present complainant Bhavesh Manibhai Parekh and compelled the father of the complainant to move on four legs; that they would convert the complainant's father into cock and sit and would take him from there. It is also alleged against the petitioners that they demanded from the complainant's father an amount of Rs. 10,000.00and threatened that if the said amount is not paid, then, they will immediately take the complainant's father in custody. According to the complainant Bhaveshbhai, in view of the conduct and the torture administered by the petitioners, mental condition of the complainant's father deteriorated and ultimately his father had become unconscious all of a sudden and then died. Learned advocate Mr. Soni appearing for the original complainant has submitted that considering the allegations levelled in the complaint itself, the petitioners have committed offence under section 302, IP Code, however, that section has not been incorporated in the FIR so far.