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) 525

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 3668 of 2025 ==========================================================
VAGHARI VINODBHAI RAMESHBHAI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AMITKUMAR K NAYEE(11940) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR MUNJAL V ACHARYA(10678) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 11/03/2025

Petitioner Advocates:MR MUNJAL V ACHARYA(10678) ,Respondent Advocate: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)

The court granted bail based on the prosecutrix's statement indicating no coercion, emphasizing discretion in bail matters when the investigation is complete.

Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhit, 2023 - Section 483 - Application for regular bail - The applicant, charged in a case involving a prosecutrix below 18 years, seeks bail. The complainant has no objection to bail. The court considers the prosecutrix's statement indicating no coercion by the applicant. The court finds it appropriate to grant bail with conditions. (Paras 2, 4, 6, 8, 9)

(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail - The court emphasizes the need for discretion in bail matters, particularly when the investigation is complete and the prosecutrix's statement does not indicate wrongdoing by the applicant. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The applicant is the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix, who is under 18 years old. The complainant has no objection to the bail application. The prosecutrix's statement indicates no coercion or harm from the applicant.

Findings of Court:
The court finds it appropriate to grant bail, imposing conditions to ensure compliance and protect the prosecution's interests.

Issues: The main issues include the prosecutrix's age, the nature of the allegations, and the complainant's stance on the bail application.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecutrix's statement, indicating no coercion, justifies granting bail, emphasizing the need for discretion in such cases.

Result: The present application is allowed.

ORDER :

(M. R. MENGDEY, J.)

1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

2. The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhit, 2023, for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.NO. 11204028240199 of 2024 registered with Kapadwanj Rural Police Station, Kheda.

3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

4. Learned APP has opposed the present application, inter alia, contending that the age of the prosecutrix was below 18 years at the relevant time. Moreover, the applicant happens to be the real brother-in-law (Banevi) of the prosecutrix. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application.

5. Pursuant to service of notice, the original complainant viz. Arunaben Vinodbhai Vaghari is present before the Court and submits that she has no objection, if the present applicant is ordered to be enlarged on bail. She, therefore, submitted to pass an appropriate order.

6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. In present case, the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Upon perusal of statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein she has stated that she was not subjected to any physical or mental torture by the present applicant and nothing has been done by the present applicant without her wish. Having regard to the aforesaid statement, the present application deserves consideration.

7. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [2012]1 SCC 40.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

9. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail, on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;

(a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

(b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution & shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and shall not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

(c) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week;

(d) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Trial Court concerned;

(e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in a month for a period of six months between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

(f) furnish the present address of his residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of Trial Court;

10. The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter.

11. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law.

12. At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.

13. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted.  

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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