Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MRM
JAYENDRASINH @ JAYDEEPSINH @ JAYUBHA PANCHANAJI ZALA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
ORDER :
(M. R. MENGDEY, J.)
1. Both the captioned applications are filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhit, 2023, for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.NO. 11189004240795 of 2024 registered with Morbi City ‘B’ Division Police Station, Morbi for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC.
2. Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that in present offence, the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. The applicants herein have been arrested in connection with the present offence on 18.04.2024 and 19.04.2024, respectively and since then they are in custody.
2.1 Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that there has been no progress in the trial after filing of the charge- sheet. The applicants have undergone incarceration for the period of almost 1 year.
2.2 Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that the case of the other co-accused, who is similarly situated to the present applicants has been considered for grant of bail by the concerned Sessions Court.
2.3 Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that there is no direct evidence so far as the involvement of the pr
Bail applications are denied when direct evidence of involvement in serious offences is presented, emphasizing the need for trial.
The court ruled that the presence and active participation of the accused in the crime, supported by witness testimonies, justified the denial of bail despite claims of false implication.
The court held that contradictions in witness statements do not justify bail when the nature of the crime is severe and no change in circumstances is presented.
The court emphasized that bail should not be granted if there is a strong likelihood of witness tampering and the accused is charged with a serious offence.
The court granted bail based on insufficient evidence against the applicant, emphasizing the importance of reliable witness testimony.
The court emphasized that the role of the accused as a facilitator rather than a principal offender, alongside the absence of flight risk, justified the granting of bail under specified conditions.
The court granted bail based on the applicant's prolonged incarceration and lack of trial progress, emphasizing fairness in similar cases.
The court denied bail due to insufficient evidence linking the applicant to the crime and previous misuse of temporary bail.
The court emphasized that bail is a discretionary remedy, particularly in serious offences like murder, where credible evidence suggests premeditated intent.
The court established that a limited role in the alleged crime and lack of substantial evidence can justify granting bail, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of bail applications.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
