Three significant eyewitnesses became hostile in front of the Sessions Court, and during cross-examination, they did not support the prosecution’s case Gujarat High Court considers the matter.
TITLE – Vishal Versus State of Gujarat
Decided On-: August 28, 2023
9822 of 2023
CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. J.Vora
INTRODUCTION-
The applicant accused no. 3 is seeking regular bail in connection with the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 506(2), and 114 of the IPC and Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act through this successive bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
FACTS OF THE CASE
According to the prosecution’s case, the incident happened on January 21, 2021, at the location noted in the charge-sheet papers. The prosecution’s case is that the primary accused and the present applicant came to the scene of the crime with a common intention and a deadly weapon and assaulted the deceased, who later died from his wounds, out of rivalry and resentment. Regarding the role of the current applicant, it is alleged that he grabbed hold of the deceased to aid the other co-accused in carrying out their shared purpose. The case was handed over to the Sessions Court following the filing of the charge-sheet. Nine of the 32 witnesses who appeared before the Sessions Court had their questions answered.
COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION
The applicant’s knowledgeable attorney has argued that there has been no recovery or discovery at the applicant’s request in this case, and that the prosecution’s case has not been supported by eye witnesses. As a result, he might be granted a concession and be expanded on bail with the proper terms and conditions.
However, Ms. Asmita Patel, a knowledgeable APP for the respondent-State, disagreed, stating that there was insufficient evidence to support the exercise of judicial discretion in favour of the applicant in this case because the offence was grave in nature.
Following the hearing of knowledgeable solicitors who represented the parties and a review of the documentation, it appears that the applicant—original accused no. 3—was detained on January 23, 2021, for the alleged offence. In terms of his function, he caught hold of the deceased at the appropriate moment. Three significant eyewitnesses became hostile in front of the Sessions Court, and during cross-examination, they did not support the prosecution’s case. In these circumstances, this Court believes that, without getting into the merits of the case, the matter merits consideration given the role assigned to the current applicant and the evidence supporting the charge.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Steffi Desousa