HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY, J
RICHHU @ RISU @ JITU S/O NACHSINH SHUKLABHAI MAVDA (AMALIYAR) – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 5001 of 2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 483 - Application for Regular Bail - Applicant sought bail in connection with FIR C.R. No. I-14 of 2008 for purchasing stolen articles, arrested in December 2024 after absconding since 2008 - Application allowed considering the nature of allegations and the fact that co-accused were acquitted. (Paras 2, 6, 8)
(B) Bail Considerations - Court considered prima facie case, presence of accused at trial, and risk of tampering with evidence - Conditions imposed for bail include maintaining law and order, providing contact details, and not leaving the jurisdiction without permission. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The Applicant was arrested for purchasing stolen golden ornaments and had been absconding since 2008. The trial of co-accused resulted in acquittal.
Findings of Court:
The application for bail was allowed based on the nature of allegations and the applicant's willingness to comply with conditions.
Issues: The main issue was whether bail should be granted considering the applicant's long absence and the nature of the charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of evaluating the nature of allegations, the applicant's presence during trial, and the need to prevent tampering with evidence.
Result: Application for bail is allowed.
ORDER :
M. R. MENGDEY, J.
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the Respondent State.
2. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. I-14 of 2008 registered with Kutyana Police Station. Porbandar.
3. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent – State.
4. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant has good reputation in the society and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.
5. Per contra, learned APP has vehemently opposed the present application for grant of regular bail contending that the offence in question had taken place in the year 2008 whereas the applicant came to be arrested for the said offence in the month of December, 2024. Thus, the present applicant had absconded for all the while. The present applicant is the State of Madhya Pradesh. The present applicant is alleged to have purchased the stolen muddamal articles from the other co-accused. Learned APP therefore submitted that looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.
6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. From the record it appears that the investigation is over and charge- sheet has been filed. The role attributed to the present applicant in commission of the offence is to the effect that the applicant had purchased the stolen golden ornaments from the other co-accused. Considering the same, so also the fact that the trial of the other co-accused had resulted into acquittal, the application deserves consideration.
7. This court has considered the following aspects:
(a) As per catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, there are mainly 3 factors which are required to be considered by this court i.e. prima facie case, availability of Applicant accused at the time of trial and tampering and hampering with the witnesses by the accused.
(b) That the learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant Accused is not likely to flee away.
(c) That the Applicant is in custody since 11.12.2024.
(d) The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40.
8. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the record produced in this case as well as taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of accusation, availability of the Applicant Accused at the time of Trial etc. and the role attributed to the present Applicant accused, the present Application deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. This Court has also gone through the FIR and police papers and also the earlier order passed by the learned Sessions Court where the learned Sessions Judge has disallowed the bail Application at initial stage. The Applicant Accused is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions that the applicant shall:
(a) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence.
(b) maintain law and order and not to indulge in any criminal activities.
(c) furnish the documentary proof of complete, correct and present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and to the Trial Court at the time of executing the bond and shall not change the residence without prior p
The court granted bail based on the applicant's compliance with conditions and the nature of allegations, highlighting the need for a balanced approach in bail considerations.
The court emphasized that insufficient evidence of direct involvement and the applicant's good reputation justified granting bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.
The court established that bail may be granted based on the assessment of prima facie case, custody duration, and risk of tampering with evidence, with conditions imposed to ensure compliance.
The court granted bail considering custody duration and compliance with outlined conditions, emphasizing non-interference with judicial processes.
The court granted bail considering the applicant's lack of prior criminal record and the completion of the investigation, emphasizing the importance of maintaining law and order during bail condition....
The court granted bail based on the Applicant's reputation and the completion of the investigation, imposing conditions to prevent tampering and ensure compliance.
The court emphasized that bail considerations include the nature of allegations, gravity of accusations, and the absence of a Test Identification Parade, leading to the granting of bail under specifi....
The court granted bail based on the Applicant's circumstances, emphasizing the need for conditions to prevent witness tampering and maintain law and order.
The court granted bail based on the Applicants' good reputation and compliance willingness, despite serious charges, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of bail conditions.
The court granted bail despite the applicant's criminal history, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of the nature of allegations and the applicant's compliance with conditions.
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.