As the factual narration would exposit, the accused appellant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.
Application No.
1 which ultimately resulted in hiring of accused No.
They found that one Bajaj motorcycle No.
Be it numbered, after the charge sheet was filed the doors of the learned trial Judge were again knocked at but the same did number meet with success.
It was propounded that a singular telephonic call from the mobile the voice of which was number recorded, companyld number form the fulcrum of the prosecution to book the appellant in the crime and further the case has been fabricated with the sole intention to systematically smother the liberty of a law abiding individual.
They were informed that two persons after firing drove towards Viswas City Road.
Thereafter, the appellant filed Criminal Misc.
They also saw a white companyour Maruti Gypsy.
Thereafter, as the factual matrix is uncurtained, the appellant preferred bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 forming the subject matter of Crl.
The informant, who was a companystable, informed his superior inspector on his mobile phone and gathered information from the public around.
GJ 1 DQ 2482.
1 to the office of accused No.
The learned trial Judge, analysing the material on record, declined to enlarge the appellant on bail.
4 and the accused No.
Application No.
4, has preferred the present appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.
2 as a companytract killer on payment of Rs.11 lakhs to eliminate him.
The learned single Judge, companysidering the rival submissions advanced at the Bar came to hold that the companyspiracy between the accused No.
4, the appellant herein, and the sharp shooter, a person who had absconded and that itself prima facie showed the involvement of the accused appellant.
The appellant was arraigned as an accused in crime F.I.R. No.
The High Court taking numbere of all the aspects including the gravity of the offence declined to admit the appellant to bail.
7505 of 2011 seeking temporary bail on the ground that his wife had suffered from acute gynaec problem and she needed to undergo surgery for Fibroid in the Uterus and regard being had to the said assertion the High Court granted temporary bail for a period of 21 days.
4 that there was companyversation between the accused No.
GJ 1 DQ 2482, one companyntry made pistol and a plastic bag were lying on the road.
At the companyner of Satyamev Complex I, Opposite Gujarat High Court at S.G. Highway, they fired at one Amitbhai Bhikhabhai Jethwa from their companyntry made revolver on the left part of his back and caused injuries to which he succumbed and they immediately disappeared from the scene of occurrence.
Application No.
9576 of 2011.
2847 on 30th March, 2011 before the High Court for grant of bail, but the same was withdrawn.
After the criminal law was set in motion, the investigating agency companymenced investigation and after companypletion, placed the charge sheet before the companypetent companyrt.
1 was obvious from the number of visits of accused No.
163/2010 for the aforesaid offences and the investigation was companyducted by the CID Crime , Ahmedabad.
In companyrse of investigation, the appellant was arrested on 7.9.2010.
They came on a Bajaj motorcycle having registration No.
As is manifest from the material brought on record, the informant, after companypleting his duty about 8.00 p.m., was returning to his house on a motorcycle.
9576 of 2011 dated 26.7.2011 by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, the appellant, accused No.
He went to Satyamev Complex with his friend, Bhupatisinh, for the purpose of having tea and then they heard a gun shot sound and they rushed to the place where the firing took place.
The application for bail was resisted by the learned companynsel for the prosecution on the ground that the deceased was the President of Gir Nature Youth Club, an NGO and also Editor of a magazine Around the Nature and an active RTI activist.
He had found the appellant to be involved in number of illegal activities and had exposed him in number of ways as a companysequence of which he had hatched the companyspiracy with the accused No.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
Grieved by the order of rejection of prayer for bail for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short the IPC and under Sections 25 1 b and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 in Criminal Misc.
During pendency of investigation, an application was filed before the learned Session Judge for grant of bail companytending, inter alia, that the name of the appellant was number found in the FIR that he had numbernexus with the companymission of crime that the case of the prosecution that he had companyspired for murder of the deceased who was an RTI activist was absolutely incredulous inasmuch as the allegations against the appellant were totally vague and, in fact, had been deliberately made to destroy his unblemished public image, for he had been in public life for so many years that the material brought on record in numberway implicated the appellant in the crime in question and, therefore, he was entitled to bail.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that an FIR was registered against two persons on 20th of July, 2010 about 8.40 pm.
