HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J
AMITBHAI HAJABHAI ZALA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 22276 of 2024
(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bail application - Applicant seeks regular bail for offences under IPC and Gujarat Police Act - Court considers factors such as nature of accusation, severity of punishment, and absence of past antecedents - Application allowed with conditions. (Paras 2, 6, 9)
(B) Bail Jurisprudence - Bail is a rule and jail is an exception, emphasizing personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution - The court finds that keeping the applicant in custody amounts to pre-trial conviction. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The applicant is in jail since 08.08.2024, falsely implicated in FIR for multiple offences, while co-accused have been released on bail.
Findings of Court:
The applicant is granted bail on executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with conditions aimed at ensuring compliance and preventing misuse of liberty.
Issues: The main issue addressed was whether the applicant's release on bail was justified based on the nature of the allegations and the principles of bail jurisprudence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's continued detention would be tantamount to pre-trial conviction, emphasizing the principle that bail should be the norm.
Result: Application allowed; bail granted with conditions.
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.11202014240554 of 2024 registered with Dhrol Police Station, Jamnagar for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 109(1), 352, 351(3), 221, 189(2), 191(2), 190, 121(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 / The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023( for short “BNS”) and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police 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 08.08.2024. It is further submitted that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be granted regular bail with imposition of suitable conditions.
4. 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 has been filed. The applicant is in jail since 08.08.2024. The co-accused persons have already been enlarged by this Court. He therefore submits that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.
5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the present application on the ground that the applicant has made assault to the victim using the wooden log and requested to dismiss the present application looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.
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 and is triable by the Court of JMFC;
(3) Applicant is behind the bars since 08.08.2024;
(4) The allegations against the present applicant is that he was working at the construction side when the scufÒe broke out between the other co-accused and the complainant. However, the other co-accused has already been enlarged by this Court.
(5) There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant;
(6) The applicant is not having any past antecedent;
(7) 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 j
Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Bail is the rule and jail the exception, emphasizing personal liberty under Article 21, especially when pre-trial detention amounts to wrongful conviction.
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 pre-trial detention should not equate to conviction, emphasizing 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; personal liberty under Article 21 must be upheld unless justified otherwise.
The principle of bail as a rule and jail as an exception is upheld, emphasizing personal liberty and the presumption of innocence.
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.
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.