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) 527

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 3825 of 2025 ==========================================================
VISHAL VINODBHAI THAKKAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. ZUBIN F. BHARDA, ADVOCATE for MR MAULIN G PANDYA(3999) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ABID R PATHAN(11217) for the Respondent(s) No.2 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 MAULIN G PANDYA(3999) ,Respondent Advocate: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)

A successive bail application must demonstrate a significant change in circumstances since the prior dismissal; mere absence from the scene does not negate instigation of the crime.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 506(2), 120(b) - Application for bail - The applicant sought bail after previous application was dismissed, citing change in circumstances due to co-accused being granted bail - The court noted that the applicant had no enmity with the deceased and was not present at the scene of the crime - However, the court found that the incident was planned at the applicant's behest, leading to the death of the deceased - The application for bail was dismissed. (Paras 1-7)

(B) Bail - Change in circumstances - The applicant must demonstrate a significant change in circumstances since the dismissal of the previous bail application for a successive application to be maintainable. (Paras 4-6)

Facts of the case:
The applicant was involved in a rivalry with the first informant, leading to a planned attack that resulted in the death of an individual accompanying the informant. The applicant was not present during the incident but was implicated as the instigator.

Findings of Court:
The court found no grounds for bail as the applicant was implicated in orchestrating the attack, despite not being present at the scene.

Issues: The main issues were whether there was a change in circumstances justifying a new bail application and the applicant's involvement in the crime.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's prior involvement and the nature of the crime did not warrant bail, emphasizing the need for a clear change in circumstances for successive applications.

Result: Application dismissed.

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. 11191065240015 of 2024 registered with Narol Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 506(2), 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of the G.P. Act.

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

3. Learned Advocate Zubin F. Bharda appearing for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant had earlier preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 10462 of 2024 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25.06.20224. However, thereafter the other co-accused have been considered for grant of bail by this Court and the role attributed to the those accused is either similar or more graver than the role attributed to the present Applicant. Thus, there is a change in circumstances after the earlier Bail Application filed by the Applicant was dismissed. He further submitted that as per the case of the prosecution case, the Applicant herein had an axe to grind against the first informant. Admittedly the Applicant had no enmity with the deceased and therefore there was no reason for the Applicant to cause any harm much less to cause the death of the deceased. He further submitted that the Applicant herein was not even present at the scene of offence when the incident had taken place. He has further 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 Bail Application filed by the Applicant on the earlier occasion has been dismissed by this Court by a detailed reasoned order and thereafter the present being a successive Application, it is incumbent upon the Applicant to show the change in circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier Application. There is no such apparent change in the circumstances thereafter and hence the Application is not maintainable. He further submitted that it was the present Applicant at whose behest the entire incident had taken place. 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. Learned Advocate appearing for the Original Complainant has also opposed the Application and prayed to dismiss the same.

6. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. The Applicant herein had earlier preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 10462 of 2024 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25.06.2024. While dismissing the said Application this Court had made the following observations:

"6. From the record it appears that the present applicant as well as the first informant were engaged in the business of illicit liquor and there was some business rivalry going on between them for quite some time. Some days prior to the incident, the first informant had posted some massage in whatsup group which was allegedly derogating image of the present applicant and therefore, the present applicant warned the first informant to tender an apology or else he would be done to death. There is whatsup conversations between the present applicant and the witness wherein the present applicant is asking the witness to visit the first informant and ask him to tender an apology for passing derogatory messages against him or else he would be done to death.

7. The alleged incident had taken place on 07.01.2024 as per F.I.R. on 06.01.2024. When the first informant was passing through the a

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