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

2024 Supreme(Guj) 290

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.
Jafar Sadrudin Dargahwala – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondents
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
CHARGESHEET) NO. 20093 of 2023
Decided on : 18-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR. ASHISH M. DAGLI, LD. ADV. WITH MR VA MANSURI
For the Respondent: DARSHIT R BRAHMBHATT, MR. L. B. DABHI

IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment established the principle that the right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution entitles prisoners, especially those of advanced age and suffering from serious ailments, to seek relief on health grounds, and the court may grant bail on medical exigency.

Headnote:

BAIL - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 439 - 302, 120B, 34 IPC, Section 135 Gujarat Police Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the offenses punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 34 of the IPC as well as Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with a murder case. The applicant-accused was alleged to have been involved in a property dispute leading to the murder of his brother. The applicant-accused, aged 69, claimed to be suffering from a rare disease, and sought bail on medical grounds.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the applicant-accused, aged 69, was suffering from a serious ailment, considered to be the initial stage of cancer, and his health had deteriorated during incarceration. The court recognized the right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution and granted bail to the applicant-accused on health grounds, emphasizing the need for proper and regular treatment.

Issues: The main issue was whether the court should exercise discretion in favor of the applicant-accused, considering his advanced age and deteriorating health condition during incarceration.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution warranted the release of the applicant-accused on bail, given his advanced age, serious ailment, and the lack of adequate treatment facilities in prison.

Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application and ordered the release of the applicant-accused on regular bail, subject to specified conditions.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11822019221371 of 2022 registered with the Navsari Town Police Station, Navsari of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120B and 34 of the IPC as well as Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

THE FACTUAL PRISM:

2. On 15.09.2022, a First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) was lodged by the brother of the deceased, namely, Imran Liyaqatali Saiyed, i.e, the original complainant against the present applicant-accused and three other unknown persons for the gruesome murder of his brother. The complaint states that on 15.09.2022, when the complainant was at his home, at that time, his relative, namely, Farhana Sakirali came to his house and informed the complainant that someone has assaulted his brother Sahidbhai at the hall premises and he was taken to the Parsi Hospital for treatment. Therefore, the complainant immediately rushed to the Parsi Hospital and when reached there, he found that his brother was in an unconscious condition and underwent the treatment. The complainant noticed multiple serious injuries on the different parts of the body of his brother to be caused by some sharp edged weapon like knife. The complainant, therefore, inquired from the two persons present over there, namely, Prakashbhai and Ravibhai, who were the staffers of the hall about such happening, whereupon, they informed the complainant that on the fateful day, when they were working inside the hall, at that time, at around 9:15 in the morning, as soon as Sahidbhai entered into the hall, immediately two unknown persons entered in the hall and made an assault upon the deceased Sahidbhai, among whom, one person caught hold the deceased and other had started giving knife blows indiscriminately to the deceased, due to which, Sahidbhai started screaming and upon hearing such shouting, they both rushed to the gate of the hall and tried to catch those unknown persons, however, both that persons ran outside the hall and fled away on one white coloured Activa carried by one another person standing outside the hall. Thereafter, both the said staffers took the deceased to the hospital where he was declared dead by the doctor.

3. The complaint further states that the entire incident has happened because of the internal property dispute between the five brothers amongst which the applicant-accused is one of the brothers. The deceased had been managing the affair of the said property since last fifteen years. There were total five owners of the property named Dargahwala Hall viz. (i) Muslimuddin Salauddin Sadruddin Darwahwala, staying at America (ii) Salauddin sadruddin Darwahwala, staying at America (iii) Tajoddin Sadruddin Dargahwala, staying at America (iv) Jafarsha Sadruddin Dargahwala, (v) Asif Yusufali Dargahwala, staying at America. One day, when a survey of the property was being done, an altercation took place between Muslimuddin Darwahwala and Jafarsha Dargahwala, i.e, the applicant herein regarding partition of the property and at that time, the deceased Sahidbhai was also present there. During such altercation, the applicant-Jafarsha Dargahwala slapped the deceased and threatened him of dire consequences as he was favouring the rival party. Some threatening messages were also sent by the applicant-Jafarsha to the deceased as well as the rival partners for which an application was also given by the deceased Sahidbhai at the Navsari Town Police Station, pursuant to which, a compromise was taken place between the rival parties. Thereafter, somewhere in the month of October, 2021, partition took place between the five brothers in respect of the disputed property of 50,000/- square feet whereby the property was divided into two parts, i.e, 60% share gone to the first party and 40% came under the second party. The first party got the marriage hall in their share and the deceased Sahidbhai had bee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top