IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.
Hiteshbhai Arvindbhai Baria - Applicant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Criminal MISC. Application (For Successive Regular Bail - After Chargesheet) No. 23353 Of 2024
Decided On : 13-12-2024
(A) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Application for bail in murder case - Applicant accused involved in conspiracy to kill - Trial court's rejection of bail application upheld due to seriousness of offence and sufficient evidence - Merely filing multiple bail applications does not justify release. (Paras 4, 10, 12)
(B) Criminal Conspiracy - Nature of evidence - The court emphasized the importance of considering the seriousness of the offence and the evidence available while rejecting bail applications. (Paras 6, 10)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was implicated in the murder of the complainant's son, allegedly due to a conspiracy involving illicit relationships and subsequent altercation. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The trial court's reasons for rejecting bail were valid, considering the gravity of the charges and the evidence presented. (Paras 6, 10)
Issues: Whether the applicant's involvement in the conspiracy warranted bail, given the nature of the evidence and the seriousness of the charges. (Paras 4, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the trial court had adequately considered the evidence and circumstances of the case in rejecting the bail application, emphasizing that the nature of the crime significantly influences bail decisions. (Paras 10, 12)
Result: Application for bail rejected.
JUDGMENT :
DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. The present successive application is filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11823026230518 of 2023 registered with the Amletha Police Station, Narmada of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 & 120B of the IPC.
3. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the present application are that the complainant, namely, Kiritbhai Ratilal Jadav (Bhoi), i.e, the father of the deceased, lodged the present FIR, inter alia, alleging therein that the accused named in the FIR, namely, Ashwinbhai Bariya was having illicit relationship with one Urvashiben, residing next to the house of the complainant and, therefore, he used to frequently visit the house of Urvashiben. The son of the complainant, namely, Danteshwar @ Dnatu once scolded Ashwinbhai Bariya when he was sitting outside the house of Urvashiben that why you are sitting here, keeping grudge of which, the accused No.1- Ashwinbhai Rameshbhai Bariya, in collusion with the accused Nos.2 and 3 in the charge-sheet papers, i,e. Urvashiben and the present applicant-accused, hatched a criminal conspiracy to kill the deceased, and as a part of the said conspiracy, the accused Nos.2 and 3 developed friendship with the deceased, and on 25.05.2023, the accused Nos.2 and 3 took the deceased for under the pretext of outing, and they took him to Zarvani, Kanji, Vandri, Piplod, Deshipada village in the white coloured Hyundai Company’s i-20 of accused No.1, and while returning on 26.05.2023, at around 1:30, as per the plan, the accused Nos.2, strangulated the deceased in the running car, due to which, the deceased became unconscious. Thereafter, the accused stopped the car near one canal at Moje Virpor village, situated between Dholar to Virpor village at Ankleshwar-Rajpipla Highway, and at that time, the deceased regained consciousness and started altercation with the accused Nos.2 and 3, and therefore, the accused No.1 inflicted blow on the head of the deceased with the steel wrench and then strangulated the deceased with the seat belt of the car, and thereby killed the deceased. Then, the accused Nos.1 and 2 thrown away the body of the deceased in the canal and then the accused No.1 took away the mobile phone of the deceased and thrown it away into the the shrubs near Rajpipla- Ankleshwar Highway road, and thereby committed the offence of murder as well as destroying the evidence. Hence, the impugned FIR.
4. Learned advocate Mr. K.T. Beladiya appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant-accused was arrested on 02.06.2023 and since then he is in jail. Learned advocate Mr. Beladiya has also submitted that the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed. He has submitted that this is a third round of litigation, and the earlier two bail applications came to be withdrawn. Learned advocate Mr. Beladiya has also submitted that the applicant-accused has not been named in the FIR, and subsequently, during the course of investigation, on the basis of the statement made by the accused No.1, his name has come on surface, which is not admissible in the eye of law being hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness to the alleged incident, and everything which has been alleged against the applicantaccused is on assumption and presumption and he has been falsely implicated in the present offence. It is moreso submitted that the applicant-accused does not know Urvashiben or Narendrasinh Mangrol. Learned advocate Mr. Beladiya has further submitted that the applicant-accused is completely unaware about the incident and has not played any role in the commission of the alleged offence. Even, in the FIR, all that is alleged is against the accused No.1-Ashwinbhai and the same d
Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi & ORS – (2001) 4 SCC 280
Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr.
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chaterjee
The court upheld the trial court's rejection of bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges and the sufficiency of evidence against the applicant.
The decision emphasized the importance of considering the nature of the offence, severity of the punishment, and the likelihood of the accused interfering with the process of justice when deciding on....
Though accused has right to make successive applications for grant of bail, court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider reasons and grounds on which earlier bail appli....
The court ruled that the applicant, as the prime accused in serious offences, cannot be granted bail due to the risk of trial tampering and his history of absconding, despite delays in the trial proc....
Offence of Murder - Bail application dismissed - Once an application for bail is rejected by a speaking order, change in circumstance pleaded to maintain a subsequent application shall not be speciou....
The court denied bail due to the applicant's serious conduct and multiple offences, emphasizing that the principle of parity does not apply uniformly in bail applications.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the seriousness of the offence, the nature of the evidence, and the likelihood of the accused interfering with the process of justice are cruc....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.