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) 533

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE CHARGESHEET) NO. 4767 of 2025 [On note for speaking to minutes of order dated 06/03/2025 in R/CR.MA/4767/2025 ]
==========================================================
BHIKHABHAI @ NATHABHAI GOKADBHAI BHARWAD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) 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. MAULIK M SONI(7249) ,Respondent Advocate: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)

The court emphasized the need for discretion in granting bail, considering the applicant's compliance with conditions and the nature of the allegations.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 483 - Application for regular bail - The applicant vacated the disputed land and undertook not to re-enter it. The court considered the nature of the offence and the applicant's custody since 28.01.2025. The court found it appropriate to exercise discretion in granting bail. (Paras 3, 6, 7)

(B) Bail - Factors for consideration - The court considered the prima facie case, the likelihood of the applicant fleeing, and the potential for tampering with witnesses. (Para 6)

Facts of the case:
The applicant vacated the disputed land and filed an affidavit confirming this. The respondent State opposed bail due to the serious nature of the charges. (Paras 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
The court found it fit to exercise discretion in granting bail based on the applicant's compliance and the nature of the allegations. (Para 7)

Issues: The main issues included the nature of the allegations and the applicant's compliance with conditions for bail. (Para 6)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's compliance with conditions and the nature of the allegations justified granting bail, emphasizing the need for discretion in such cases. (Para 7)

Result: Application allowed; applicant released on bail.

ORDER :

(M. R. MENGDEY, J.)

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State.

2. This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No.11187002250028 of 2025 registered with Balasinor Police Station, District Mahisagar.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the possession of disputed land has been vacated by the present applicant on 01.03.2025 and he has filed an affidavit of one Valiben Bhikhabhai who happens to be wife of the present applicant to the said effect wherein it is also mentioned that the applicant shall not again enter the disputed land of in any capacity in future whatsoever. He has also stated that considering the nature of offence and role attributed to the applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

4. The learned APP appearing for the respondent State has vehemently submitted that the offences which have been charged, are serious in nature and looking to the facts as well as the allegations levelled against the applicant, no discretion is required to be exercised.

5. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant has produced affidavit of one Valiben who happens to be wife of the present applicant. In the said affidavit, it is stated that the applicant and his family members have vacated the disputed land in question prior to two days today and it is also undertakes that the applicant and his family members shall not claim any right title or interest over the disputed land in question in future. Having regard to these facts, the present application deserves to be allowed.

6. 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 28.01.2025.

(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.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegations made in the FIR and without discussing the evidence in details as well as without going into details, prima-facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence, the application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR, on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that;

(a) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence.

(b) shall maintain law and order and not to indulge in any criminal activities.

(c) shall 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 residence without prior permission of the trial Court.

(d) shall provide contact numbers as well as the contact numbers of the sureties before the Trial Court. In case of change in such numbers inform in writing immediately to the trial Court.

(e) shall file an affidavit stating immovable properties whether self acquired or ancestral with description, location and present value of such properties before the Trial Court, if any.

(f) shall not leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court

(g) s

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