SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Guj) 55

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Divyesh A. Joshi, J.
Sunandaben Shambhajibhai Mangabhai Koli – Applicant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Criminal Misc.Application (For Regular Bail – After Chargesheet) No. 15355 of 2023
Decided On : 02-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : Dr Balram D Jain
For the Respondent: Mr. J. K. Shah, Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor

The court emphasized the need for judicious exercise of discretion in granting bail, considering the nature of the accusations, severity of the punishment, and prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.

Headnote:

Bail - Criminal Conspiracy - IPC 302, 120(B), 114 - [Sections 302, 120(B), 114 of the IPC] - The court discussed the wide-ranging discretionary powers vested in the court when considering grant of bail, emphasizing the need for judicious exercise of discretion and the importance of considering the nature of the accusations, severity of the punishment, and prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. The court also highlighted the use of circumstantial evidence in establishing the guilt of the accused.

Fact of the Case:

The accused applied for bail in connection with a case involving the murder of the deceased, who was in an inter-caste marriage disliked by the accused. The prosecution alleged a criminal conspiracy to eliminate the deceased, with the accused playing a vital role.

Finding of the Court:

The court rejected the bail application, emphasizing the grave nature of the allegations, the use of circumstantial evidence, and the establishment of a chain of evidence connecting the accused with the commission of the crime.

Issues: The court considered whether to exercise discretion in favor of the accused in granting bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for judicious exercise of discretion in granting bail, considering the nature of the accusations, severity of the punishment, and prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. The court also highlighted the use of circumstantial evidence in establishing the guilt of the accused.

Final Decision: The bail application was rejected, and the rule was discharged.

ORDER :

1. This is an application at the instance of an accused praying for regular bail in connection with the First Information Report being C.R. No. 11824001230291 of 2023 registered with the Vyara Police Station, Tapi for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120(B) and 114 of the IPC.

2. The prosecution version in brief is that in the year 2020, the daughter of the complainant, i.e, the deceased, namely, Anjali got married with one Rohitbhai Sambhajibhai Koli. As the said marriage was an inter-caste marriage, the family members were against the said marriage. It was a love marriage. It is alleged that since last two years, the deceased was residing with her husband Rohit at Vyara in the Vrundavan Dham Society on rent. It is alleged that on 24.03.2023, when the complainant was returning to his home from his work, at around 8:00 O’ clock in the night hours, the complainant received a call from his another daughter to immediately reached to home. Therefore, the complainant immediately reached to his house where the daughter of the complainant, namely, Sneha told him that deceased Anjali is serious. Thereafter, the complainant disclosed the said fact to his employer Anilbhai, whereupon Anilbhai immediately reached to the house of the complainant in his car. Thereafter, the complainant went to Vyara General Hospital in the car of Anilbhai. Upon reaching there, he found his wife and daughter Priti crying and upon making inquiry from them, they told the complainant that Anjali was not well since last two days and therefore she was admitted to the hospital where the doctor declared her dead. It is alleged that thereafter they went to see the body of the deceased and found that there were some marks of injuries on her left cheek and on the neck. She was also frothing at the mouth. The fingers were also found to be bend. It is also alleged in the complaint that when the complainant asked Rohit about the same, he told that on the fateful day, at around 8:00 O’ clock in the morning, he left the house and went to his shop at Songadh. His mother Sunandaben was there along with Anjali at the house. When Rohit returned to home at around 6:45 in the evening, he found Anjali sleeping and when he tried to wake her up, Anjali did not wake up. Therefore, when Rohit tried to wake her up by pulling her hands, her hands were found to be stiffed and there was foaming at the mouth. There were some injuries on her cheek. Therefore, Rohit started screaming due to which his mother and the people of the society immediately rushed there. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the hospital where she was declared dead. A case of an accidental death also came to be lodged by the Rohit. Thereafter, the postmortem of the deceased was performed in which the cause of death is shown that the deceased died due to ‘smothering’(to kill somebody by covering his/her face so that he/she cannot breathe). It is alleged that the wife of the complainant told him that whenever Anajli called her, she often complained that her mother-in-law used to make quarrel with her as she had a love marriage with her son. Hence, the impugned FIR.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Balram Jain has submitted that the criminal complaint was registered on 26.03.2023 and the present applicant-accused came to be arrested on 27.03.2023 and since then, she is in jail. The investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet has also been filed by the concerned Investigating Officer. Learned advocate Mr. Jain has submitted that the applicant-accused has been arraigned as an accused on the basis of suspicion and the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon circumstantial evidence. It is further submitted that there is no eye-witness to the incident as no one has witnessed the same. Even the complainant is also a hearsay evidence and on the basis of assumption and presumption, charges have been levelled against the applicant-accused. Learned advocate Mr. Jain has further submitted that initiall

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top