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) 493

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 5085 of 2025 ==========================================================
GAURANANDAN @ BABULAL @ GOVARDHAN MALI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DAIFRAZ HAVEWALLA(3982) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Respondent No.1 ==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 12/03/2025

Petitioner Advocates:MR DAIFRAZ HAVEWALLA(3982) ,Respondent Advocate: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)

The court granted bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, emphasizing the need to consider the nature of the offence and the applicant's compliance with conditions to prevent tampering with evidence.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 483 - Application for regular bail - Applicant seeks bail in connection with FIR for non-payment for goods purchased - Court considers factors including prima facie case, gravity of offence, and applicant's antecedents - Application allowed with conditions imposed. (Paras 2, 6, 8)

(B) Bail - Factors for consideration - Court must evaluate prima facie case, likelihood of the applicant fleeing, and potential for witness tampering. (Paras 7)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, facing charges related to non-payment for goods purchased, has been in custody since 22.10.2024. The investigation is complete, and a charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant has a good reputation and is willing to comply with bail conditions.

Findings of Court:
The application for bail is granted, with the applicant to execute a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- and comply with specified conditions to ensure law and order and prevent tampering with evidence.

Issues: The court addressed whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the nature of the offence and the applicant's history of similar offences.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to balance the seriousness of the allegations against the applicant's willingness to comply with bail conditions and the completion of the investigation, allowing bail while imposing strict conditions to mitigate risks.

Result: Application for bail 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. 11210046241258 of 2024 registered with Puna Police Station. Surat .

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 applicant has several other antecedents for commission of similar nature of offences which indicates that as and when, the applicant is ordered to be enlarged on bail, he has a habit of commission of similar offences again and again. 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. As per the case of prosecution, some business had taken place between the present applicant and the first informant and it is alleged against the applicant that he had purchased the goods from the first informant, however no payment for the said purchases had been made. Having regard to the nature of the offence and the allegations levelled against the present applicant, 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 22.10.2024.

(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 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 permission of the trial Court.

(d) provide c

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