Rakeshkumar Laxmichand Jain vs State Of Gujarat on 13 June, 2023
Bench: Honourable Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 13265 of 2019
Facts
By way of this present application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the applicant herein – original complainant had challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.4181 of 2019 by which the learned Judge had released the respondent herein – original accused on bail. Though the matter was filed in the year 2019, the Court had not issued a Notice for 4 years as the applicant had not turned up for any of the proceedings.
The dispute between the applicant and the respondent No.2 was that the applicant executed a deed in favour of the respondent No.2 – original accused and thereby transferred the disputed property in favour of the respondent accused. As per the say of the applicant – original complainant it was the oral understanding between the deceased and the accused that as and when the deceased returned the money, the accused would again enter into the agreement and return the property to the deceased. Though the deceased had returned the money, the respondent-accused had not executed the deed in favour of the deceased and therefore, under such circumstances, the deceased took the untoward step of committing suicide
The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the respondent herein – original accused had committed a serious offence and misused the liberty granted at the time of releasing him on bail by the trial Court. He had submitted that the respondent had not complied with the condition of surrendering his passport before the concerned Trial Court. He urged that the present application be allowed and the bail granted to the respondent No.2 – accused be cancelled.
Judgement
The Court graned bail to the respondent and held that, so far as Section 306(abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code was concerned, this cannot be termed as an abatement to commit suicide and therefore, after considering all these aspects, the learned Trial Court had rightly exercised powers while granting bail to the respondent accused and thereafter, no allegation with regard to violation or any breach of peace or tranquility had been made against the respondent accused nor was there any allegation with regard to win over the witnesses or indulge into pressurize the witnesses. In the present case, except for the condition that the respondent accused had not surrendered his passport before the I.O. or before the concerned Court, no other breach is said to have been reported. Even the State had not preferred any application for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent accused. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court granted bail to the respondent-accused.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AMIT ARAVIND
“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.”
