Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 1715
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.R BRAHMBHATT, J.
Vijaykumar Radheshyam Ramshvrup Agraval - Applicant
Vs.
State of Gujarat - Respondent
Criminal Miscapplication (For Regular Bail) No. 10306 of 2016
Decided On : 31-08-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. Amit N Chaudhary, Advocate
For the Respondent: MS. Jirga Jhaveri, APP
Headnote:
BAIL - SECTION 439 CRPC - DELAY IN TRIAL - INORDINATE DELAY - SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR BAIL - EXCEPTIONS - HEINOUS CRIME - TAMPERING OF EVIDENCE - SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS - DELAY CAUSED BY COMPLAINANT - NOT A VALID GROUND FOR BAIL - SUCCESIVE BAIL APPLICATIONS - REJECTION OF EARLIER APPLICATIONS - REJECTION NOT A GROUND FOR ENTERTAINING SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION - CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES - NO CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES - BAIL APPLICATION REJECTED.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, accused of murder, filed a successive bail application after the rejection of his earlier applications. He argued that the delay in trial, which had lasted for 9 years, was an inordinate delay and a sufficient ground for bail. The prosecution opposed the bail application, contending that the delay was caused by the complainant's attempts to prolong the trial and that there was no change in circumstances since the rejection of the earlier applications.
Finding of the Court:
The court observed that the delay in trial was a significant factor to be considered, but it was not the sole factor. The court noted that the applicant was accused of a heinous crime, that there were serious allegations against police officers, and that there was evidence of tampering with evidence. The court also found that the delay was caused by the complainant's attempts to ensure a fair trial and to prevent any infraction in the proceedings. The court further noted that the applicant had filed multiple successive bail applications and that there was no change in circumstances since the rejection of the earlier applications.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in trial was an inordinate delay and a sufficient ground for bail. 2. Whether the delay was caused by the complainant's attempts to prolong the trial. 3. Whether there was a change in circumstances since the rejection of the earlier applications.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the delay in trial was a significant factor to be considered, but it was not the sole factor. The court noted that the applicant was accused of a heinous crime, that there were serious allegations against police officers, and that there was evidence of tampering with evidence. The court also found that the delay was caused by the complainant's attempts to ensure a fair trial and to prevent any infraction in the proceedings. 2. The court held that the delay was not caused by the complainant's attempts to prolong the trial. The court noted that the complainant had filed multiple applications and proceedings in an attempt to ensure a fair trial and to prevent any infraction in the proceedings. 3. The court held that there was no change in circumstances since the rejection of the earlier applications.
Final Decision: The court rejected the bail application, holding that the delay in trial was not an inordinate delay and that there was no change in circumstances since the rejection of the earlier applications.
S.R BRAHMBHATT, J.
Heard learned advocate for the parties.
2. The applicant/accused has approached this Court by way of this successive bail application for enlarging him on bail on appropriate terms and conditions in view of the fact that the applicant/accused is in custody for a period of 9 years.
3. The applicant/accused is in custody in respect of CR. No. I-60/2007 registered with Umargam Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections - 302, 201, 34 of Indian Penal Code, read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
4. The main contention canvassed on behalf of the applicant/accused for seeking bail in this successive bail application being inordinate delay in trial and contribution of the complainant and prosecution in prolonging the trial. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner urged the Court that there were as many as 11 accused, out of which 10 accused have already been enlarged on bail and the present applicant is the sole accused in the custody, which amounts to violation of his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the various proceedings taken-out by the complainant side has sizeably contributed in prolonging the trial as a result whereof, the petitioner is in custody without there being any pronouncement of guilt upon him. Therefore, these factors collectively may be appreciated by the Court and on any condition deemed fit by the Court, the applicant/accused be enlarged on bail.
6. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner cited following decisions in support of his submission for enlarging the applicant/accused on bail.
[1] In case of Akhtari Bi v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2001) 4 SCC 355.
[2] In case of Raj Deo Sharma v. The State of Bihar reported in 2000 (1) G.L.H 88.
[3] In case of State, CBI/Spe., New Delhi v. Pal Singh, reported in (2001) 1 SCC 247.
[4] In case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40.
[5] In case of Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2014) 12 SCC 23.
[6] In case of Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 134.
[7] In case of Vivek kumar v. State of U.P, reported in (2000) 9 SCC 443.
[8] And a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in a case of State of Kerala v. Raneef in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 7999/2010 decided on 3rd January 2011.
7. The aforesaid authorities were relied upon to support the contention on behalf of the applicant/accused that the delay in itself defeats the fundamental rights of the accused as enshrined under Constitution of India and therefore, the rule of bail is required to be applied and not the exception i.e the jail. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the rejection of the earlier applications may not be a ground for rejecting the present application.
8. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner invited this Court's attention to the order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1773 of 2009 filed by the very applicant, which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 6th March 2009, wherein this Court observed that the rejection of that application would not come in the way of the applicant to approach the Court, in case there was an inordinate delay and other circumstances so warranted.
9. Learned advocate for the petitioner also invited Court's attention to the order passed by this Court on 24th January 2013 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 796 of 2013 and submitted that in that case the accused was in fact enlarged on bail on the ground that the accused therein had been in custody for a period of 7 years.
10. Learned advocate for the petitioner also invited Court's attention to the order passed by this Court on 12th February 2016 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 22305 of 2015 and submitted that in that case also the accused was in fact enlarged on bail on the ground that acc
