ISHVARJI NAGAJI MALI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents waive service of notice of rule.

(2.) In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta appearing for the respondent no.2 has submitted that the case of the present respondent no.2 with regard to his complicity in the offence is absolutely different from the accused Lalitkumar Ganpatji Tank, whose bail has been cancelled by the Apex Court. He has submitted that the present respondent no.2 has good case on merits and his role cannot be equated with the accused Lalitkumar Ganpatji Tank. He has very fairly submitted that admittedly the trial court has granted bail to the present respondent no.2 only on the ground of parity to the accused Lalitkumar Ganpatji Tank, who was released by this Court on regular bail vide order dtd. 30/7/2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.9390 of 2021. However, it is submitted by him that the trial court, while releasing the present respondent no.2 on bail, has not examined the role and complicity of the present respondent no.2. It is further submitted by him that he has a very good case on merits and if the role of the present respondent no.2 is independently examined, there are fair chances that the respondent no.2 will get bail. Thus, he has submitted that an opportunity is required to be granted to the respondent no.2 to explain his innocence or complicity of the role before the trial court as and when the present respondent no.2 applies for bail.

(3.) Learned APP Mr.Ronak Raval has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned advocate Mr.Buch appearing for the applicant.