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) 89

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J
AAYUSH UPENDRA RATHOD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 25537 of 2024



Petitioner Advocates:MR DIPESH D SONI(9996) ,Respondent Advocate: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)

Anticipatory bail can be granted when the applicant shows no involvement in serious offences and poses no flight risk, considering the nature of the accusation and the applicant's history.

Headnote:

(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory bail - Application for anticipatory bail was filed in connection with FIR for offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - The applicant claimed no involvement in the offence, which was a quarrel between neighbors - The court considered factors such as the nature of the accusation, the applicant's antecedents, and the possibility of fleeing from justice - The applicant was granted anticipatory bail with conditions. (Paras 1.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0)

(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail - The court must exercise discretion judiciously, considering the gravity of the accusation, the applicant's history, and the potential for flight - The court emphasized that the role attributed to the applicant was minor and the victim was no longer in danger. (Paras 4.0, 5.0)

ORDER :

RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat.

1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11200010241826 of 2024 dated 24.11.2024 registered with Valsad Town Police Station, Valsad for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and and therefore, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. It is further submitted that the alleged incident took place between the neighbors in a pity quarrel and the present applicant through chutney on the face of complainant. It is alleged that the father of the applicant came with a knife and made assault to the victim and whereas the allegations against the present applicant is that of stone pelting. The injured victim is now out of danger and discharged from the hospital. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It is further submitted that accused nos.1, 2 and 3 happens to be father and both sons have made assault to the victim-complainant. The victim had sustained grievous injuries. Prima facie involvement is there and therefore custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, he has requested to dismiss the present application.

4. Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided. I have considered the following aspects.

(1) Offence is not punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty;

(2) Alleged offence is occurred on 23.11.2024;

(3) The role attributed to the present applicant is that of stone pelting, the stone is not a dangerous weapon.

(4) The injured victim is out of danger and has been discharged from hospital;

(5) Nothing is required to be recovered or discovered;

5. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665 and also the decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, I am inclined to allow the present application.

6. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest / appearance of the applicant in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11200010241826 of 2024 dated 24.11.2024 registered with Valsad Town Police Stat

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