Jetha Bhaya Odedara v. Ganga Maldebhai Odedara And Another, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

SLP (Crl.) No. 4010 of 2011, decided on December 16, 2011

Disposition

dismissed

Attorney(S)

D.N Ray, Lokesh K. Choudhary and Ms Sumita Ray, Advocates, for the Petitioner;
Ms Meenakshi Arora, Ms Hemantika Wahi, Ms Jesal and Ashwini Kumar, Advocates, for the Respondents.

Judges

Justice Cyriac Joseph
Justice T.S. Thakur

Acts

Section 142 of the BP Act
66(1)(b), 85(1-3) of the Prohibition Act
25(1-B)(a), etc. of the Arms Act
25(1-B)(a), 25(1)(d) of the Arms Act
367, 147, 325, etc. IPC and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act
302, 120-B IPC and Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
110, 117, 135 of the BP Act
Section(s) of the Prohibition Act
Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act
122(c) of the BP Act
Sections 177, 184 etc. of the MV Act
Section 25(1) of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the BP Act
Section(s) of the BP Act
279, 337 IPC and Sections 184, 177 of the MV Act
Sections 302, 307, 324, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 507(2) IPC read with Section 25(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

On 14-1-2007 (Makar Sankranti Day) the complainant, Jetha Bhaya Odedara, was sitting with associates at the residence of Abha Arjan in Porbandar. Accused Ramde Rajsi Odedara allegedly arrived, used abusive language, and returned shortly with several armed companions, including the present respondent, Ganga Maldebhai Odedara. The group allegedly assaulted the complainant’s party, causing knife injuries to multiple persons while the respondent reportedly fired a pistol into the air and exhorted the others to kill. One victim, Navgan Arasi, later died in hospital.

FIR No. I-4/2007 was registered at Kirti Mandir Police Station for offences under Sections 302, 307, 324, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 507(2) IPC, Section 25(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Fast Track Court, Porbandar.

The respondent’s first bail request (Criminal Misc. Application No. 3/2010) was rejected by the trial court on 11-2-2010, noting his alleged gang affiliation, multiple prior cases, and a brief period of abscondence. The High Court of Gujarat, however, allowed Criminal Misc. Application No. 9119/2010 on 13-9-2010, granting bail under Section 439 CrPC with conditions—among them, monthly police reporting, non-entry into Porbandar Taluka for six months, and surrender of passport.

The complainant filed the present special leave petition in the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s order.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion under Section 439 CrPC in granting bail to the respondent despite the seriousness of the charges and his alleged criminal antecedents.
Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with and set aside the bail order after nearly two years of its operation.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner (Complainant)

Described the respondent and co-accused as members of a “desperate gang” operating in Porbandar and involved in several other criminal cases.
Contended that the respondent’s release could impede a fair trial and threaten public safety.

Respondent (Ganga Maldebhai Odedara)

Filed a counter-affidavit asserting that the complainant’s side forms part of the rival “Arjun Gang” or “God Mother Gang,” also allegedly engaged in numerous offences.
Produced detailed lists of criminal cases purportedly pending against the complainant and several prosecution witnesses to show parity of antecedents.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court examined the material and noted that the rival submissions portrayed a gang rivalry between the respondent’s “Kotda Gang” and the complainant’s “Arjun Gang.” The Court emphasised the need for circumspection when evaluating such competing versions.

Crucially, the bail order had been in force for almost two years without any allegation that the respondent had tampered with evidence or violated bail conditions. The Court also highlighted that no gunshot injuries were actually sustained by any victim, despite allegations of pistol firing.

Given the lapse of time, the absence of post-release misconduct, and the continuing right of the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail upon any breach, the Court found no compelling reason to interfere with the High Court’s discretionary order.

Holding and Implications

Special Leave Petition DISMISSED.

The respondent remains on bail subject to the conditions imposed by the High Court. The prosecution retains liberty to seek cancellation if those conditions are breached. The Supreme Court expressly limited its observations to the bail context, leaving all issues on the merits of the criminal trial open. No new legal precedent was set by this decision; its effect is confined to the parties involved.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Jetha Bhaya Odedara v. Ganga Maldebhai Odedara And Another

T.S Thakur, J.— The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has by its order dated 13-9-2010 allowed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 9119 of 2010 and enlarged the respondent, Ganga Maldebhai Odedara on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The present special leave petition has been filed by the complainant assailing the said order.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that 14-1-2007, being Makar Sankranti Day, the complainant, Jetha Bhaya Odedara, the petitioner before us, was sitting at the house of one Abha Arjan, along with Navgan Arasi, Rama Arasi Jadeja, Suresh Sanghan Odedara and a few ladies of the house, named, Aarsi Munja, Maliben and Puriben. At around 8.00 p.m one Ramde Rajsi Odedara, one of the accused persons is alleged to have come to the place where the complainant was sitting and started using abusive language. He was asked not to do so. Thereupon he left the place only to return a few minutes later with accused Punja Ram, Lakha Ram, Devsi Rama, Vikram Keshu Odedara, Gangu Ranmal, Vikram Devsi Odedara, Ramde Rajsi Odedara and the respondent and some others armed with knives and a pistol which the respondent was allegedly carrying with him. The accused persons started abusing and assaulting the complainant and others who were sitting with him resulting in knife injuries to Vikram Keshu, Navgan Arasi, Rama Arasi and Puriben. Respondent Ganga Maldebhai Odedara is alleged to have fired multiple rounds from the pistol in the air exhorting his companions to kill the complainant and others with him.

3. Navgan Arasi died in the hospital on account of the injuries sustained by him leading to the registration of FIR No. I in Crime No. 4 of 2007 in Kirti Mandir Police Station, Porbandar City against the respondent and his companions for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 507(2) IPC read with Section 25(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. With the death of the deceased, Navgan Arasi, in due course the investigation was completed and a charge-sheet for the offences mentioned above filed before the Sessions Judge, Porbandar, who made over the case to Fast Track Court, Porbandar for trial and disposal in accordance with law.

4. An application, being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of 2010 was then filed by the respondent before the trial court for grant of bail which was opposed by the prosecution and eventually dismissed by its order dated 11-2-2010. The trial court was of the view that no case for the grant of bail to the respondent applicant had in the facts and circumstances of the case been made out particularly in view of the fact that the respondent was involved in several criminal cases apart from the one in which he was seeking bail. The trial court was also of the view that the respondent was a member of the gang operating in Porbandar area and that he had absconded for a month before he was arrested. It was also of the view that the role played by the respondent and his association with the other accused persons was likely to affect the smooth conduct of the trial.

5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court the respondent filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 9119 of 2010 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad which application as noticed earlier, was allowed by the High Court in terms of the impugned order in this petition. The High Court has without scrutinising and appreciating the evidence in detail come to the conclusion that the respondent had made out a case for grant of bail. The High Court also noticed the fact that no injury was caused with the help of the firearm which the respondent was allegedly carrying with him. The High Court accordingly allowed the application subject to the condition that the respondent shall not take undue advantage of his liberty, tamper with or pressurise the witnesses and that he shall maintain law and order and mark his presence before the police station concerned once in a month. He was also directed to surrender his passport and not to enter Porbandar Taluka limits for a period of six months. The present special leave petition assails the correctness of the above order.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. We have also gone through the record. While the petitioner complainant has described the respondent and the other accused persons as a desperate gang active in Porbandar area and involved in commission of several offences, the respondent has in the counter-affidavit filed by him made a similar allegation giving particulars of the cases registered against the petitioner and some of the witnesses.

7. In para 4 of the counter-affidavit the respondent has stated thus:

“4. … I state that the complainants' side is a well-recognised gang, properly known as ‘Arjun Gang’ and ‘God Mother Gang’. Prosecution witness Abha Arjan, who is the brother of the deceased is the real son of Arjan Munja Jadeja. Arjan Munja Jadeja is the real brother of deceased Sarman Munja Jadeja who was a well-known history-sheeter of Porbandar. After death of Sarman Munja, Santokben Jadeja, properly known as ‘God Mother’ took the charge of the gang and it was known as God Mother Gang. Series of offences have been registered against ‘Arjun Gang’ and ‘God Mother Gang’. Abha Arjan is the nephew of Santokben Jadeja. Abha Arjan Jadeja is involved in a series of offences stated hereinbelow:

Abha Arjan Jadeja

CR No. Offence under Section(s) Police Station II-3068 of 2001 25(1-B)(a), etc. of the Arms Act Madhavpur II-101 of 1995 25(1-B)(a), etc. of the Arms Act Kutiyana II-28 of 1995 25(1-B)(a), etc. of the Arms Act Kutiyana II-33 of 1990 504, 506(2), etc. IPC Kamlabaug I-193 of 1997 302, 120-B IPC and Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act Kamlabaug I-170 of 1994 307, 302, etc. IPC Kamlabaug II-30 of 1990 506(2), 114, etc. IPC Kamlabaug II-54 of 1997 25(1-B)(a), 25(1)(d) of the Arms Act Ranavav II-3 of 1994 25(1-B)(a), 25(1)(d) of the Arms Act Ranavav I-20 of 1990 367, 147, 325, etc. IPC and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act Kutiyana I-91 of 1990 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 IPC Kirti Mandir

I say and submit that the complainants' side is a well-recognised gang, properly known as ‘Arjun Gang’ and ‘God Mother Gang’. Prosecution witnesses viz. Jetha Bhaya, Suresh Sangan Odedra, Keshu Chana Kudechha, Bhima Rama Bhutiya, Prakash Punja Kadechha, Rama Arshi, Amit Nebha Bhutiya are the members of ‘Arjun Gang’ and ‘God Mother Gang’. All these prosecution witnesses are involved in a series of offences stated hereinbelow:

Jetha Bhaya Odedra—Complainant

CR No. Offence under Section(s) Police Station I-44 of 1995 302 IPC Udhyognagar I-177 of 1994 307, 147, 148, 149, etc. IPC Kamlabaug

Suresh Sangan Odedra

CR No. Offence under Section(s) Police Station II-79 of 1993 135 of the BP Act Kamlabaug I-189 of 1993 302 IPC Kamlabaug I-24 of 2001 323, 324, etc. IPC Kamlabaug II-20 of 1992 110, 117, 135 of the BP Act Kamlabaug II-61 of 1995 122(c) of the BP Act Kirti Mandir

Bhima Rama Bhutiya

CR No. Offence under Section(s) Police Station III-… of 1991 66-B and 65-E of the Prohibition Act Kirti Mandir I-101 of 1991 323, 324, 325, 114 IPC and Section 135 of the BP Act Kirti Mandir III-5132 of 2003 66(1)(b) and 65(e) of the Prohibition Act Kirti Mandir I-44 of 1993 279, 337, 338 IPC and Sections 177, 184, etc. of the MV Act Udhyognagar I-252 of 1991 302 IPC and Section 25(1) of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the BP Act Kamlabaug I-30 of 1993 302 IPC Madhavpur I-46 of 1993 147, 325, 149, etc. IPC Madhavpur III-18 of 1992 66-B, 66(e) of the Prohibition Act Madhavpur II-28 of 1995 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act Kutiyana II-3003 of 2001 142 of the BP Act Madhavpur I-49 of 2001 447, 323, 506(2), etc. IPC Udhyognagar III-5085 of 2000 66-B, 66-EE of the Prohibition Act Madhavpur I-54 of 2000 66-B, 65-EE of the Prohibition Act Madhavpur II-3054 of 2000 142 of the BP Act Madhavpur I-17 of 1994 143, 506(2) IPC Madhavpur

Prakash Punja Kuchhadiya

CR No. Offence under Section(s) Police Station II-97 of 2007 135 of the BP Act Kirti Mandir II-3025 of 2002 135 of the BP Act Kirti Mandir III-5275 of 2002 66(1)(b), 85(1-3) of the Prohibition Act Kirti Mandir III-5052 of 1999 66-1-B, 85(1-3) of the Prohibition Act Kirti Mandir I-102 of 2001 279, 337 IPC and Sections 184, 177 of the MV Act Kirti Mandir

Rama Arshi Jadeja

CR No. Offence under Section Police Station II-96 of 2007 135 of the BP Act Kirti Mandir

Amit Nebha Bhutiya

CR No. Offence under Section Police Station III-5019 of 1999 66(1)B of the Prohibition Act Kirti Mandir”

8. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent. If the allegations made in the special leave petition and those made in the counter-affidavit are correct, the incident appears to have been the result of a gang war between “Kotda Gang” of which the respondent is said to be a member and “Arjun Gang” of which the complainant-petitioner and some of the witnesses are said to be active members. It is true that while no one including a gangster has any right to take law into his own hands or to criminally assault any other gangster operating in any area or anyone else for that matter, the fact that two gangs appear to be at war with each other and involved in commission of several offences, makes it imperative that the rival versions presented before the Court in connection with the incident in question are examined carefully and with added circumspection.

9. Having said that we need to note that the bail order was passed as early as on 11-2-2010 i.e nearly two years back. It is not the case of the complainant that the respondent has during this period either tried to tamper with the evidence or committed any other act that may affect the fairness of the trial. Equally significant is the fact that there was no gunshot injury to either the complainant or the deceased or any other person involved in the incident. In the circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the prosecution shall be free to apply for cancellation of bail should the respondent fail to comply with any of the conditions imposed upon him by the High Court in the order under challenge, we are not inclined to interfere with the order granting bail at this stage.

10. The special leave petition is dismissed with these observations. We make it clear that nothing said by us in this order shall prejudice either the prosecution or the defence. The observations made by us are relevant only for the disposal of the petition and will not be taken to be the expression of any opinion on the merits of the case pending before the court below.

Jetha Bhaya Odedara v. Ganga Maldebhai Odedara And Another

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner (Complainant)

Respondent (Ganga Maldebhai Odedara)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Jetha Bhaya Odedara v. Ganga Maldebhai Odedara And Another

Comments