Bharwad Santoshbhai Sondabhai vs State of Gujarat

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 1298

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HIMA KOHLI, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Bharwad Santoshbhai Sondabhai – Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Gujarat & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.2495 of 2023 @ Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3552 of 2022
Decided On : 22-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Somesh Chandra Jha, AOR Mr. Kuldipsinh Jadeja, Adv. Mr. Pyoli, Adv. Mr. Mayank Gautam, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sunil Prakash Sharma, AOR Mr. Kumar Deepraj, Adv. Mr. Raju Sonkar, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Srishti Mishra, Adv.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Bail application granted by High Court challenged - Court stresses that serious charges under Section 302 justify detention - Accused's criminal antecedents noted as significant, including FIRs for serious offences - Bail grant quashed, respondent directed to surrender. (Paras 2, 12, 14)

(B) Appeal - Scope of interference in bail decisions - Courts must consider the nature of allegations, antecedents, and potential for evidence tampering. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a bail grant in a murder case, where the appellant contends the respondent's criminal history and the severity of charges warrant detention.

Findings of Court:
Bail granted on improper grounds given the serious nature of the charges and the respondent's criminal history, leading to the decision to quash the bail.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the High Court appropriately considered the seriousness of the charges and the respondent's antecedents in granting bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that serious charges under the IPC's Section 302, along with the respondent's past criminal activities, necessitated denial of bail; thus, the High Court's decision was flawed.

Result: Appeal allowed, bail order quashed.

Table of Content
1. description of the incident and offenses. (Para 2 , 3)
2. appellant's concerns over bail applications. (Para 4)
3. high court's considerations for bail. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. criminal antecedents and relevant firs. (Para 8 , 9)
5. concerns regarding tampering with evidence. (Para 10 , 11)
6. decision to quash bail granted. (Para 12)
7. final judgment and terms of bail application. (Para 13 , 14)

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal by way of special leave has been filed by the complainant who is aggrieved by the order dated 18th February, 2022, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in a Criminal Miscellaneous Application [Crl. Misc. Application No.23194/2021] filed by the respondent No.2 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’], granting him regular bail in connection with FIR No.I-CR No.11216008210400/2021 [registered with Gandhinagar Sector-7, Police Station, Gandhinagar], for the offence under Sections 30 2 and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 [in short ‘the IPC] read with Section 30 of the ARMS ACT and Section 135 of the GUJARAT POLICE ACT .

3. The incident in question took place in the late hours of 17th September, 2021, when as per the complainant, respondent No.2 (accused No.2) along with accused No.1 were seated together at the farm of the victim, namely, Parvinbhai and they had got into a heated argument. In the course of the said argument, on the exhortation of the respondent No.2 (accused No.2), accused No. 1 took out a revolver and fired at the victim. The allegation is that the respondent No.2 hit the deceased victim with a sword. Thereafter, they fled away from the spot in a black coloured Mercedes car. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused returned to the scene of the crime and when confronted by the appellant herein, slapped him and dragged him in their moving car due to which he suffered injuries on the head and the waist. Both the appellant and Pravinbhai were rushed to the hospital where Pravinbhai succumbed to his injuries.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the respondent No.2 had approached the trial Court for seeking regular bail twice. The first application for bail was rejected vide order dated 25th November, 2021 [Cr. M.A. No.1680/2021] . Even on the second occasion [Criminal Misc. Application No. 1763 of 2021 dt. 17.12.2021], the trial Court [Court of Principal Sessions Judge at Gandhinagar] declined to grant any relief to the respondent No.2, keeping in mind the fact that he was facing a charge under Section 302 of the IPC and that the witnesses had identified him during the test identification parade [For short ‘the TIP’] .

5. Dissatisfied by the aforesaid dismissal order, the respondent No.2 approached the High Court and filed an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The learned Single Judge has enumerated the aspects that were considered by the Court for allowing the application moved by the respondent No.2, in para 5 of the impugned order which is extracted as below:-

I. The FIR is registered on 18.09.2021 for the offence which is alleged to have taken place on 17.09.2021.

II. The applicant is in jail since 23.09.2021.

III. The investigation is concluded and charge-sheet is filed.

IV. The applicant is also filled on the strength of the settlement now arrived at.

V. Learned advocate Ms. Shweta Dave appearing for the original complainant draws attention of this Court to the affidavit of the original complainant to indicate the settlement.

VI. Considering the manner in which the incident has taken place where the applicant and the deceased alongwith their other friends had got together and there was a scuffle which resulted into the present incident.

VII. Submission of learned advocate for the applicant that it was the deceased who had f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document