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

2025 Supreme(GUJ) 35

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J
KHETARAM VANKARAM JAT – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 24272 of 2024



Petitioner Advocates:O I PATHAN(7684) ,Respondent Advocate: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)

Bail is the rule, and pre-trial detention should not equate to conviction, emphasizing personal liberty under Article 21.

Headnote:

(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 61(1)(A), 336(2), 336(3), 338 - Gujarat Prohibition Act - Bail application - The applicant, falsely implicated, has been in custody since 18.09.2024; investigation is complete, and charge-sheet filed. The court considered factors such as the nature of the accusation, absence of flight risk, and no tampering of evidence. The principle of bail as a rule and personal liberty under Article 21 were emphasized. (Paras 5, 6, 7, 8)

Findings of Court:
The application for regular bail is granted with conditions to ensure compliance and prevent misuse. (Para 8)

Issues: The court addressed the appropriateness of bail considering the nature of the allegations and the applicant's circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that pre-trial detention should not amount to a conviction, emphasizing the principle that bail is the norm.

Result: Application for bail allowed.

ORDER :

1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

2. The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11211040240215 of 2024 registered with Panshina Police Station, Surendranagar for the offences punishable under Sections 61(1)(A), 336(2), 336(3) and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) / The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Sections 65(A), 65(E), 81, 83, 116(B), 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and he is falsely implicated in the offence. The applicant is in jail since 18.09.2024. It is further submitted that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be granted regular bail with the imposition of suitable conditions.

4. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Therefore, the present application may be dismissed.

5. While granting bail, the Court has to consider the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and the following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses and threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations are required to be considered.

6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the investigation papers.Following aspects have been considered:

(1) The applicant is behind the bar since 18.09.2024;

(2) Investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed;

(3) The offence is not punishable by life imprisonment or death penalty and no chance of flight risk.

(4) No possibility of tampering the evidence.

(5) No allegations qua the forgery against the present applicant;

(6) The applicant has no past antecedent;

(7) Now, nothing is required to be discovered or recovered from the accused and there is no possibility of the trial taking place in the near future;

7. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40 as well as in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240. Obviously, the conclusion of trial will take time and keeping the accused behind the bars is nothing but amounts to pre-trial conviction and therefore, considering the celebrated principle of bail jurisprudence is that “bail is a rule and jail is exception” as well as the concept of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, present application deserves consideration .

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant/s in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant/s on regular bail. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicants is/are ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11211040240215 of 2024 registered with Panshina Police Station,

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
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