The 2nd case has been filed by the companyplainant, namely, Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the respondents Shri Shivbhadrasinh Gopalsinh Giriraj Jadeja Respondent No.2 herein and Shri Jayrajsinh Themubha Jadeja Respondent No.3 herein 2nd and 3rd Accused in Criminal Case No.
I 173/2005, lodged by the appellant in the 2nd case Gobarbhai.
On 17th February, 2004 the respondent was released on anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Misc.
And after giving grass to my company myself came in garden and heard a sound of firing and when I seen that were two persons who were fining out of which one Viranndev and other Gopalsinh after firing both of them ran away to the east side of building wall which I have seen I know them they are residing in Gondal.
The facts in brief culminating into filing of these appeals are narrated below.
sic Respondents filed M.A. No.8305/2004 seeking bail.
On 3rd of March, 2006, the respondent filed another application for temporary bail in Criminal Case No.
I 25/2004, which was granted by the High Court for a period of one month from 6th March, 2006 to 5th of April, 2006.
The said fire hit the glass of the car.
While companying back, they were followed by a car, which overtook Jayeshbhais vehicle driven by Ramjibhai.
On 26th October, 2005 the High Court granted bail to the respondents herein in CR No.
Sessions case has number yet companymenced and numberprosecution witness has been examined.
Thus, application filed by the appellant, seeking cancellation of the temporary bail was dismissed as infructuous on 10th February, 2006, as the respondent had already surrendered.
Application No.
When they reached near Central Talkies at about 8.15 p.m., three persons, namely Jairajsinh Jadeja, Amarjit Singh and Bhagat came out of the car and allegedly fired at the Jayeshbhais car.
I do number know full name of the person, they were jumped the wall at that time on wall M.L.A. Jayrajsinh Jadeja was standing and the person who runaway has told him that they have companypleted Vinodrai Singala and revenge has been taken and telling this they got down the wall and runaway with them.
I 25/2004, the respondent surrendered on 20th of March, 2004.
Appellant also filed CRA No.92/2004 for the same relief.
On 19th March, 2004 Vinubhai Singala Vinod Rai Singala was murdered.
But finding that there was another car which was following them, he again entered the vehicle.
After expiry of the period of temporary bail, the respondent surrendered and thereafter filed a Criminal Misc.
7579/2004 filed earlier by the respondent in which prayer for grant of bail was turned down by his order dated 14th September, 2004.
In the meantime, on expiry of the period of temporary bail granted to the respondent, the respondent had surrendered on 27.1.2006.
Jayeshbhai was hit by the shattered pieces of glass.
The car went out of companytrol and hit another car and thereafter side railing on the road.
This time, the Honble Judge granted regular bail to the respondent by observing thus Having heard the learned advocates for the rival sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the applicant is in judicial custody since March, 2004.
The appellant and Ramjibhai ran away from the scene and, while running, they saw that the Nilesh Rayani was being beaten by other persons.
Respondent was released on bail on 27th December, 2005.
Looking to gravamen of charge against the present applicants, their involvement prima facie clearer from the record of the case , quantum of punishment, their tenancy sic to remain away from police as per para 6 and para 8 of judgment of the trial companyrt , leads me to believe that they may number be available at the time of trial and due to cumulative effect of all the aforesaid factors, I am number inclined to use discretionary power, to enlarge the present applicants on bail, there, is numbersubstance in the present application and hence, the present application is rejected.
The respondent was named in the FIR as one of the assailants.
Ramjibhai, who was driving the car at that point of time, to save himself, came out of the vehicle and tried to run away.
I 25/2004.
Appellant filed an application for cancellation of temporary bail granted to the respondent.
The respondent Jayrajsinh Jadeja again fired which hit Nilesh Rayani.
Nilesh died on the spot.
The applicants were number available after the offence is companymitted as narrated in para 6 and para 8 of the judgment by the trial companyrt.
Meanwhile, the deceased Nilesh started driving the vehicle.
Anticipatory bail granted to the respondent was cancelled by the High Court on 5th March, 2004.
After his arrest, the respondent filed an application for bail in Criminal Case No.
The appellant came to his house where Vinubhai Singala and others were present.
The 1st case has been filed by the Complainant Jayeshbhai Panchabhai M. Satodiya seeking cancellation of the bail granted to respondent Shri Jayrajsinh Temubha Jadeja who, at that time, was a sitting Member of Legislative Assembly of Gujarat the first accused in Criminal Case No.1 25/2004 registered under Sections 302, 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 120B, 201 IPC and Sections 25 1 A, 1 a , 27 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act at Police Station Gondal City for the alleged murder of Nilesh.
They lodged the report, i.e., Case No.1 25/2004 under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 307, 120B, 201 IPC, Sections 25 1 a and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
I 173/05 at P.S. Malviya Nagar, Rajkot.
Against the aforesaid order, the companyplainant Gobarbhai has filed the Appeal arising out of SLP Crl No.
The High Court by its order dated 14th September, 2004 refused to grant bail to the respondent, inter alia, observinging From the aforesaid facts and looking to the statements of the witnesses, panchnama, reports, including ballistic report, prima facie reflects that there is direct involvement of the applicants in companymissioning of the offences.
28/2004.
Such bail application, if filed, shall be companysidered on its own merits.
The case was registered as Criminal Case No.
The State of Gujarat filed CPA No.102/2004 in the High Court, seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent.
Appellant thereafter narrated the story to Vinubhai Singala and then they went to meet Ramjibhai, who was hiding in the Town hall out of fear.
sic Pursuant to the cancellation of bail by the High Court in Criminal Case No.
The said FIR was lodged by Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala, father of the deceased Vinubhai Singala, appellant in the 1st Appeal under Sections 143, 148, 149, 447, 302 IPC and 23 1 b of Arms Act.
That, on 9th February, 2004 the companyplainant Jayeshbhai appellant in 1st case along with Nilesh Rayani and Ramjibhai Markana had allegedly gone to hostel.
In the said FIR it was inter alia alleged Today at about 8/00 to 8/30 a.m. my son Vinodrai was reading newspaper in garden of bungalow companypound and was seating in the companyt, nearby Vanupuriyabhai was seating.
In Criminal Case No.1 25/2004 incident of 9th February 2004 respondent filed an application for temporary bail, which was granted by the High Court on 23rd of December, 2005 for one month.
6646/2005, seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the respondents, in which this Court issued numberice on 16th of December, 2005.
