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) 514

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 1529 of 2025 ==========================================================
PANKAJ @ PANKESH KANUBHAI RATHVA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. HARDIK S. SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 11/03/2025

Petitioner Advocates:MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) ,Respondent Advocate: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)

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.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Application for Regular Bail - The Applicant sought bail in connection with a murder charge, asserting good character and willingness to comply with conditions. The prosecution opposed bail, citing a strong prima facie case against the Applicant. The court considered factors including the nature of allegations and the Applicant's custody duration. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Bail Considerations - The court emphasized three factors: prima facie case, availability of the accused at trial, and risk of witness tampering. The court found no material linking the Applicant to the offence beyond participation. (Paras 5-6)

Facts of the case:
The Applicant was accused of conspiracy to murder, allegedly due to suspicions of black magic related to the death of their son. The Applicant had been in custody since 18.09.2024.

Findings of Court:
The court allowed the bail application, ordering release on a personal bond with conditions to ensure compliance and prevent interference with the trial.

Issues: The main issues included the strength of the prima facie case against the Applicant and the appropriateness of granting bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Applicant's limited role and lack of substantial evidence warranted bail, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of bail applications.

Result: Application for bail allowed.

ORDER :

(M. R. MENGDEY, J.)

1. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11184004240643 of 2024 registered with Kadwal Police Station, Chhotaudepur.

2. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent – State.

Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondent - State.

3. 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.

4. Per contra, learned APP has opposed the present application for grant of regular bail contending that the Applicant and his wife were doubting the deceased doing some black magic on their son and because of which the son had died and therefore a conspiracy was hatched by the present Applicant and the other co-accused to eliminate the deceased. The Applicant herein had actively participated in commission of the offence in question. The Panchnama under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was drawn in the prsence of the Applicant wherein the Applicant had shown the place where the incident had taken place. Thus, there is a strong primafacie case against the Applicant. Learned APP has therefore submitted that looking to the nature of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the Application may be dismissed.

5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. The investigation is over and charge sheet is filed. As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased was done to death by the present Applicant and the other co-accused while the other co-accused had strangulated the deceased whereas the Applicant is alleged to have caught hold of her by her legs. No other overt act has been attributed to the Applicant nor there is any material connecting the present Applicant with the offence in question. Considering these aspects, the Application deserves consideration. This court has also 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 18.09.2024.

(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.

6. 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 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

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