HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY, J
KARA DEVRAJ RADA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE CHARGESHEET) NO. 1396 of 2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - Section 483 - Application for regular bail - Applicant seeks bail in connection with FIR C.R. No. 11203004240546 - Court considers reputation, custody duration, and nature of allegations - Application allowed with conditions imposed. (Paras 2, 6, 8, 12)
(B) Bail considerations - Factors include prima facie case, availability of accused, and witness tampering - Court emphasizes the importance of these factors in bail decisions. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The Applicant filed for bail related to an FIR involving alleged assault on police personnel during a quarrel initiated by the Applicant's son. The Applicant has a significant criminal history with 107 antecedents.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the bail application, emphasizing the need for conditions to ensure compliance and prevent tampering with evidence.
Issues: The main issues included the nature of the allegations against the Applicant and the appropriateness of granting bail given the Applicant's criminal history.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Applicant's reputation, custody duration, and the nature of the allegations warranted bail, provided strict conditions were imposed to ensure compliance and prevent interference with the investigation.
Result: Application for bail allowed.
ORDER :
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. 11203004240546 of 2024 registered with ‘C’ Division Junagadh Police Station. Junagadh.
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 investigation of the offence is still in progress. The present applicant is a hard-core criminal and there are as many as 107 antecedents against the present applicant, therefore the provisions of GUJCTOC has been invoked against him. The investigating agency had sought an extension for filing of charge-sheet and the said application was filed before learned Special Court and learned Special Court had issued notice to the applicant, however the present applicant had chosen not to remain present before learned Special Court in the said proceedings and therefore, the time for prosecution for filing the charge-sheet has been extended. 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. As per the case of prosecution, the son of the present applicant was riding on a motorcycle and was blowing horn necessarily and therefore the son of the applicant was reprimanded by the police authorities and on that issue a quarrel had taken place between the present applicant, other co-accused and the police personnel, wherein the applicant is alleged to have given kicks and fists blows to the police personnel. The incident alleged in the FIR does not appear to have taken place in furtherance of common object of the Syndicate.Considering the same, 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 7.10.2024.
(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 he shall:
(a) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acq
The court granted bail under BNSS Section 483, emphasizing the need for strict conditions due to the Applicant's criminal history and the nature of allegations.
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.
The court granted bail based on the applicant's good reputation, the nature of allegations, and compliance with specific conditions, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of bail factors.
The court granted bail considering the applicant's prolonged custody and the nature of allegations, imposing conditions to ensure compliance and prevent tampering with evidence.
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 granted bail considering the applicant's reputation, gravity of allegations, and ensuring compliance with conditions while addressing risks related to flight and witness tampering.
The court ruled that the absence of material evidence linking the applicant to the alleged offence warranted the granting of bail, emphasizing the need for a prima facie case.
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 granted bail under BNSS Section 483, emphasizing the need to consider the prima facie case, custody duration, and potential flight risk, while imposing strict conditions to ensure complianc....
The court granted bail considering custody duration and compliance with outlined conditions, emphasizing non-interference with judicial processes.
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.