REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.4010 of 2011

Jetha Bhaya Odedara …Petitioner

Versus

Ganga Maldebhai Odedara and Anr. …

Respondents

J U D G M E N T

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1

1. The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has by its  

order dated 13th September, 2010 allowed Criminal Misc. --

Application  No.9119/2010  and  enlarged  the  respondent,  

Ganga  Maldebhai  Odedara  on  bail  under  Section  439  of  

Code  of  Criminal  Procedure.  The  present  Special  Leave  

Petition has been filed by the complainant assailing the said  

order.

2. Briefly  stated,  the  prosecution  case  is  that  14th  

January,  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  2

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.  Navgan Arasi died in the hospital on account of  

the injuries sustained by him leading to the registration of  

FIR No. I Cr.No.4/2007 in the 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) of IPC read with Section 25(1)  

of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.  

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  3

law.   

3. An application, being Crl. Misc. Application No.3/2010  

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 11th February, 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.  

4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court the  

respondent  filed  Criminal  Misc.  Application  No.9119/2010  

4

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  scrutinizing  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 pressurize the witnesses and that he shall maintain law  

and  order  and  mark  his  presence  before  the  concerned  

police station 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.   

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some  

length.  We have also gone through the record. While the  

petitioner-complainant  has  described  the  respondent  and  

5

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.   In  para  4  of  the  counter  affidavit  the  

respondent has stated thus:          

“4. xxxxxxxxx   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  Jadega  is  the  real  brother  of   deceased Sarman Munja Jadeja who was a well known  history  sitter  of  Porbandar.   After  death  of  Sarman  Munja,  Santokben  Jadeja,  properly  known  as  ‘God  Mother’ took the charge of 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  series  of  offences  stated  herein below:       

ABHA ARJAN JADEJA  

C.R. No. Offence U/s. Police  Station

II-3068/2001 25 (1B) A, etc. of Arms Act Madhavpur

II-101/1995 25 (1B) A, etc. of Arms Act Kutiyana

II-28/1995 25 (1B) A, etc. of Arms Act Kutiyana

6

II-33/1990 504, 506(2), etc. of IPC Kamlabaug

I-193/1997 302, 120-B of IPC and Sec.  25 (1B) of Arms Act

Kamlabaug

I-170/1994 307, 302 etc. of IPC Kamlabaug

II-30/1990 506(2), 114, etc. of IPC Kamlabaug

II-54/1997 25 (1B) (A), 25 (1) (D) of  Arms Act

Ranavav

II-3/1994 25 (1B) (A), 25 (1) (D) of  the Arms Act

Ranavav

I-20/1990 367, 147, 325, etc. of IPC  and 25 (1) A of the Arms  Act

Kutiyana

I-91/1990 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 of  IPC

Kirti Mandir

I say and submit that the complainants’ side is a  well recognized 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 series  of  offences stated herein below:

JETHA BHAYA ODEDRA-COMPLAIANT  

C.R. No. Offence U/s. Police  Station

I-44/1995 302 of IPC Udhyognagar

I-177/1994 307, 147, 148, 149 etc. of  IPC

Kamlabaug

SURESH SANGAN ODEDRA  

C.R. No. Offence U/s. Police Station

7

II-79/1993 135-B of B.P. Act Kamlabaug

I-189/1993 302 of IPC Kamlabaug

I-24/2001 323, 324 etc. of IPC Kamlabaug

II-20/1992 110, 117, 135 of B.P. Act Kamlabaug

II-61/1995 122-C of B.P. Act Kirti Mandir

BHIMA RAMA BHUTIYA

-

C.R. No. Offence U/s. Police Station

III-      /1991 66B & 65E of Prohibition Act Kirti Mandir

I-101/1991 323, 324, 325, 114 of IPC and  Section 135 of B.P. Act.  

Kirti Mandir

III-5132/2003 66(1)B and 65(1)E of Prohibition  Act

Kirti Mandir

I-44/1993 279, 337, 338 of IPC and 177,  184, etc. M.V. Act

Udhyognagar

I-252/1991 302 of IPC and 25(1) of Arms  Act and 135 of B.P. Act  

Kamlabaug

I-30/1993 302 of IPC Madhavpur

I-46/1993 147, 325, 149, etc. of IPC Madhavpur

III-18/1992 66-B, 65E of the Prohibition Act Madhavpur

II-28/1995 25 (1) B-A of Arms Act Kutiyana

II-3003/2001 142 of B.P. Act Madhavpur

I-49/2001 447, 323, 506 (2), etc. of IPC Udhyognagar

III-5085/2000 66-B, 66EE of Prohibition Act Madhavpur

I-54/2000 66-B, 65Ee of Prohibition Act Madhavpur

II-3054/2000 142 of B.P. Act Madhavpur

I-17/1994 143, 506 (2) of IPC Madhavpur

8

PRAKASH PUNJA KUCHHADIYA

C.R. No. Offence U/s. Police Station

II-97/2007 135 of B.P. Act Kirti Mandir

II-3025/2002 135 of B.P. Act Kirti Mandir

III-5275/2002 66-1-B, 85(1-3) of Prohibition  Act

Kirti Mandir

III-5052/1999 66-1-B, 85(1-3) of Prohibition  Act

Kirti Mandir

I-102/2001 279, 337 of IPC and 337, 184,  177 of M.V. Act   

Kirti Mandir

RAMA ARSHI JADEJA

C.R. No. Offence U/s. Police Station

II-96/2007 135 of B.P. Act Kirti Mandir

AMIT NEBHA BHUTIYA

C.R. No. Offence U/s. Police Station

III-5019/1999 66(1) B of Prohibition Act Kirti Mandir

6. 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  

9

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 any one  

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. Having said that we need to note that the  

bail order was passed as early as on 11th February, 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  10

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.   

7. 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.          

……………………..………J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH)

……………………..………J. (T.S. THAKUR)

New Delhi December 16, 2011

11