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) 538

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 4951 of 2025 ==========================================================
MAHENDRAKUMAR BALUBHAI HATHIWALA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================
Appearance:
SHAISHAV S PANDIT(7363) 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:SHAISHAV S PANDIT(7363) ,Respondent Advocate: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)

The court granted bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, emphasizing the need for conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and ensure the applicant's presence during trial.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 483 - Application for regular bail - The applicant, charged with demanding illegal gratification, was granted bail considering the nature of allegations and the fact that the investigation is complete and charge-sheet filed - The court emphasized the need for conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and ensure the applicant's presence during trial. (Paras 2, 5, 6, 7)

(B) Bail - Factors for consideration - The court considered the prima facie case, the likelihood of the applicant fleeing, and the potential for witness tampering, ultimately deciding that the applicant is not likely to flee and that the case warranted bail. (Paras 6, 7)

Facts of the case:
The applicant was arrested for demanding Rs.6,000/- as illegal gratification, with evidence including audio and video recordings. The applicant has been in custody since 19.12.2024.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant should be granted bail under specific conditions to ensure compliance and prevent interference with the trial process.

Issues: The main issues included the nature of the allegations, the strength of the evidence, and the appropriateness of granting bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that given the completion of the investigation and the nature of the allegations, it was appropriate to grant bail while imposing conditions to safeguard the trial process.

Result: Application allowed; applicant granted 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.11194032240008 of 2024 registered with Valsad A.C.B. Police Station, District Valsad.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted 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 there are audio and video recordings against the present applicant demanding illegal gratification from the first informant. Thus, there is strong evidence against the present applicant for commission of offence. Learned APP has, therefore, 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. Investigation is over and Charge-sheet has already been filed. While the present applicant was working as T.D.O., had demanded Rs.6,000/- towards illegal gratification from the first informant and the said amount had been recovered from the drawer of the table of the present applicant. Having regard to this aspect, 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 19.12.2024.

(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.

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) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week. If accused does not possess passport, shall file an Affidavit to that effect.

(h) shall mark presence before the concerned police station once in a month for a period of six months between 11:00

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