Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 735

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Sanjiv Kumar Rajendrabhai Bhatt – Appellant
Versus
The State of Gujarat And Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(S). of 2025 (@ SLP(Criminal) No(s). 11736 of 2024) With Criminal Appeal No(S). of 2025 (@ SLP(Criminal) No(s). 3587-3588 of 2024) Criminal Appeal No(S). of 2025 (@ SLP(Criminal) No(s). 3957 of 2024) Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2025 (@ SLP (Criminal) No(s). 9462 of 2024
Decided On : 29-04-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mitesh Amin, A.A.G. Mr. Tushar Gokani, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Mr. Rishi Yadav, Adv. Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajesh Gulab Inamdar, AOR Mr. Harsh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ajay Desai, Adv. Ms. Rupali Samuel, Adv. Mr. Nipun Arora, Adv. Mr. Vasim Lalsa Shaikh, Adv. Ms. Shabnam Khan, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Anand, Adv. Mr. P Ashok, Adv. Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Adv. Mrs. Taruna Singh Gohil, AOR Mr. Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Rushabh N. Kapadia, Adv. Ms. Hetvi Ketan Patel, Adv. Ms. Taniya Bansal, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mitesh Amin, A.A.G. Mr. Tushar Gokani, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Mr. Rishi Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Trivedi, AOR Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Adv. Mrs. Taruna Singh Gohil, AOR Mr. Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Rushabh N. Kapadia, Adv. Ms. Hetvi Ketan Patel, Adv. Ms. Taniya Bansal, Adv. Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR Ms. Ankeeta Appanna, Adv. Ms. Madhura Chitnis, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Yadav, Adv.

The court denied bail to a police officer convicted of custodial violence leading to death, emphasizing the gravity of the allegations and the appellant's role in delaying the trial.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 323, 506(1), 34, and 114 - Conviction for custodial violence leading to death - The appellant was convicted for life imprisonment by the trial Court, which was upheld by the High Court - The appellant contended that the prosecution's case was false and lacked a live link to the death of the victim, who died 19 days post-alleged violence - The cause of death was Rhabdomyolysis, not directly linked to the alleged custodial torture - The prosecution argued that the appellant, a police officer, was responsible for the delay in trial and the evidence established a direct connection between the violence and the victim's death. (Paras 4-10)

(B) Bail - The court denied bail, emphasizing the gravity of the allegations and the appellant's role in delaying the trial - The court noted that the observations made were limited to the bail application and would not affect the appeal's outcome. (Paras 17-18)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the death of Prabhudas Madhavji Vaishnani due to alleged custodial violence, with the trial lasting nearly 29 years, largely due to the appellant's actions.

Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the bail application, citing the serious nature of the allegations and the appellant's influence in delaying the trial.

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the prosecution's case, the link between custodial violence and death, and the appellant's responsibility for trial delays.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellant's position as a police officer and the nature of the allegations warranted denial of bail, emphasizing the need for accountability in custodial cases.

Result: Bail application dismissed.

ORDER :

Crl. Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No(S).11736 of 2024

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. A prayer for grant of bail in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 11736 of 2024 has been sought by the appellant, namely, Sanjiv Kumar Rajendrabhai Bhatt.

4. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323, 506(1) read with Sections 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860¹[Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘IPC’] vide judgment dated 20th June, 2019 passed by the Sessions Court, Jamnagar, Gujarat²[Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘trial Court’] in Sessions Case No. 148 of 2016. The appeal against the conviction, preferred by the appellant, was rejected by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad³[Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘High Court’] vide judgment dated 9th January, 2024, upon which the appellant preferred the instant criminal appeal, assailing his conviction and the sentence of life imprisonment, awarded to him by the trial Court.

5. Shri Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that the entire prosecution case is false and unbelievable. The FIR⁴[FIR C.R. No. 102 of 1990] of the alleged incident of custodial violence, leading to the death of Prabhudas Madhavji Vaishnani (deceased)⁵[Hereinafter referred as ‘Prabhudas (deceased)], was lodged after gross and unexplained delay. The deceased expired after 19 days of the alleged incident of custodial violence. Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish any live link between the so-called allegations of custodial violence/torture and the death of Prabhudas. The appellant has remained in custody for approximately 6 years and there is no possibility of the appeal being heard in the near future.

6. He further submitted that the cause of death as set out in the post mortem report of Prabhudas (deceased) is Rhabdomyolysis, which is a condition characterized by the breakdown of muscle tissue and hence, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that the alleged episode of custodial beating/torture directly led to the death of Prabhudas (deceased).

7. He further submitted that the appellant suffered a protracted trial spread over a period of approximately 29 years. The appellant was on bail throughout the trial, and he did not misuse the said liberty granted to him. On these grounds, Shri Kapil Sibal urged that the appellant deserves indulgence of bail during pendency of the present appeal.

8. Per contra, Shri Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel, representing the State and Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, learned counsel representing the informant (brother of the deceased), vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. They urged that the appellant, who was a senior police officer, and the co-accused persons were primarily responsible for the delay in the trial of the case. Every dilatory tactic in the book was used to frustrate and prolong the trial so that the witnesses could be influenced and won over. The proceedings of the trial were frequently stalled on account of the stay orders passed in the numerous revisions/petitions filed by the appellant at the intermediary stages of the trial. Hence, the appellant is solely responsible for prolonging the trial and thus, the argument that the appellant did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to him is not tenable.

9. It was further submitted that the complaint alleging the custodial violence against Prabhudas (deceased) was filed promptly and the delay, if any, is well explained. The deceased was subjected to brutal beating on the soles of his feet and was forced to undertake rigorous physical activity leading to failure of his kidneys/other vital organs which proved fatal. The appellant was the prime perpetrator of the said offence. They, thus, urged that the appellant, being a senior police officer, was under an obligation to protect the lives of the citizens, however, instead of obliging to the same, he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document