HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J
JADEJA BHAGYARAJSINH PRAVINSINH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 20951 of 2024
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376(2)(n), 294(b), 406 and 420 - Application for regular bail - Applicant alleged to have developed a physical relationship under false pretext of marriage - Consideration for bail includes nature of accusation, severity of punishment, and possibility of tampering with evidence - The Court found no prima facie case for denying bail and granted regular bail with conditions. (Paras 2, 6, 9)
(B) Bail Jurisprudence - The principle that 'bail is a rule and jail is an exception' is emphasized, along with the importance of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, aged 23, was accused of offenses including rape and fraudulently promising marriage to a 35-year-old complainant. The charge-sheet was filed, and the applicant had no prior offenses.
Findings of Court:
The Court found sufficient grounds to grant bail, considering the nature of the allegations and the applicant's circumstances.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the severity of the accusations and the applicant's background.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled in favor of granting bail, emphasizing the principle that personal liberty should not be compromised without substantial evidence of guilt.
Result: Application for bail allowed.
ORDER :
1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.
2. The present successive application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11191032240318 of 2024 registered with Maninagar Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 294(b), 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”).
3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence and now nothing is required to be recovered or discovered as the charge-sheet is filed. Further, applicant is aged 23 years whereas the complainant victim is aged 35 years. The allegation against the applicant is that under the false pretext of marriage, applicant developed physical relationship with the complainant and thereafter denied marrying her. He therefore submits that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.
4. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the present application and requested to dismiss the present application for regular bail on the ground that prima facie material is collected against the present applicant during the investigation and merely filing of charge-sheet is no ground to grant bail to the applicant. Hence, has requested to dismiss the present application.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Darshan Dave for the original complainant has submitted objections raised by the original complainant which is taken on record. He has vehemently opposed the present application and has requested to dismiss the present application.
6. 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.
7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the investigation papers. Following aspects have been considered:
(1) Investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed;
(2) None of the offence alleged is punishable with life sentence or death penalty;
(3) Applicant is behind the bars since 08.08.2024;
(4) There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant;
(5) The applicant is not having any past antecedent;
(6) Obviously commencement and conclusion of trial will take some time.
8. 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. It is apposite to refer to the
Bail is a rule and jail is an exception; personal liberty must be prioritized unless substantial evidence suggests otherwise.
Bail is a rule and jail is an exception, emphasizing personal liberty and the need for careful consideration of the accused's circumstances.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; lack of corroborative evidence justifies granting bail under personal liberty principles.
The principle of bail as a rule and jail as an exception is upheld, emphasizing personal liberty and the presumption of innocence.
Bail is the rule and jail the exception, emphasizing personal liberty under Article 21, especially when pre-trial detention amounts to wrongful conviction.
The court emphasized that bail is a rule and pre-trial detention is an exception, affirming the presumption of innocence and personal liberty under Article 21.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must consider the nature of accusations and the presumption of innocence when granting bail.
Bail is a rule and jail is an exception; pre-trial detention is unjustified when significant delays in prosecution occur.
Bail is the rule, and pre-trial detention should not equate to conviction, emphasizing personal liberty under Article 21.
Bail is a rule and jail is an exception, and there should not be pre-trial punishment.
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.