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) 495

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 5092 of 2025 ==========================================================
HABIBBHAI @ ABDUL @ ABALO IBRAHIMBHAI SANDH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS SHIVANGI D MADHAD(13116) 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 VIRAT G POPAT(3710) ,Respondent Advocate: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)

The court granted bail considering the applicant's age and the nature of allegations, emphasizing the need for careful evaluation of bail conditions.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - Section 483 - Application for regular bail - The applicant, aged 75, was accused of keeping watch over the deceased during an incident involving previous enmity between groups - The court considered factors such as the nature of allegations and the applicant's age in granting bail. (Paras 2, 6, 7, 8)

(B) Bail considerations - The court emphasized the need to evaluate prima facie case, the likelihood of the accused fleeing, and potential witness tampering - The applicant was ordered to comply with specific conditions upon release. (Paras 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The applicant sought bail in connection with an FIR alleging involvement in a serious offence, with claims of active participation and prior enmity.

Findings of Court:
The application for bail was allowed, with the applicant required to execute a personal bond and comply with various conditions.

Issues: The main issues included the applicant's role in the offence, the gravity of the allegations, and the appropriateness of bail given the applicant's age.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that considering the applicant's age and the nature of the allegations, bail was warranted, emphasizing the importance of not being influenced by prima facie observations.

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. 11203068240239 of 2024 registered with Vanthali 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 there was a previous enmity between two groups and therefore the incident alleged in the FIR had taken place. The role attributed to the present applicant in commission of the offence is to the effect that the applicant was present at the scene of offence armed with an iron rod. The present applicant was also assigned a task of keeping a watch over the movement of the deceased. Thus there is an active participation on part of the present applicant in commission of the offence in question. 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 only role attributed to the present applicant in commission of the offence is to the effect that the applicant was keeping watch over the movement of the deceased and was even present at the scene of offence at the time of incident. The present applicant was armed with an iron road. The present applicant is aged around 75 years. 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 16.10.2024.

(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 docum

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