Back
2025 Supreme(GUJ) 547
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J
AMIRBHAI MOHAMMEDBHAI VAHORA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 4896 of 2025
The court ruled that anticipatory bail is warranted when no overt act is attributed to the applicants, emphasizing the need for cautious discretion in bail matters.
Headnote:
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Anticipatory bail - Applicants sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR for multiple offences under BNSS and related acts - Allegations of unlawful assembly and involvement in assault were made against co-accused, not the applicants - No overt act attributed to applicants - Court emphasized the need for cautious exercise of discretion in bail matters, considering factors such as nature of accusation, antecedents, and necessity of custodial interrogation. (Paras 1.0, 4.0, 5.0)
(B) Bail - Conditions - Court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions including cooperation with investigation, presence at police station, and non-interference with evidence. (Paras 6.0)
Facts of the case:
Applicants accused of being part of an unlawful assembly and assault were granted anticipatory bail as allegations were primarily against a co-accused. No overt act was attributed to the applicants. (Paras 2.0, 4.0)
Findings of Court:
The court found no necessity for custodial interrogation and allowed bail, imposing conditions for cooperation and non-interference. (Paras 5.0, 6.0)
Issues: The main issues addressed were the necessity of custodial interrogation and the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail under the circumstances. (Paras 4.0)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of overt acts against the applicants and the nature of allegations did not warrant custodial interrogation, aligning with established legal principles regarding bail. (Paras 4.0, 5.0)
Result: Application for anticipatory bail allowed.
ORDER :
RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State of Gujarat.
1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the applicants accused have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11204067250041 of 2025 registered with Sevaliya Police Station, District Kheda for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 61, 109, 118(1), 189(2), 189(4), 191(3), 190, 351(3) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”); section 30 of the Arms Act and section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.
2. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the offence as they were members of unlawful assembly. Whatever allegation qua assault is made is against one Shakeel and not against any of the present applicants. The present applicants are alleged to have been armed with hockey but they have not assaulted any of the witness or the complainant. The alleged incident took place in connection with oral altercation where one Shakeel made an assault and subsequently he called the present applicants. Hence, now nothing remains to be recovered or discovered from the present applicants and therefore, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicants are available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicants may be granted anticipatory bail.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State as well as learned advocate Mr. S.A. Kadri for the original complainant have opposed grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that applicants were member of unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon and accused one Shakeel made an assault and thereafter, he called the present applicants and even CCTV footage is available showing the presence of the present applicants and applicants are clearly seen damaging the vehicle. Applicants are headstrong persons and therefore also, possibility of tampering with evidence cannot be ruled out if the applicants are granted anticipatory bail and hence, as custodial interrogation of the applicants is required, they have requested to dismiss the present application.
4. Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicants including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicants to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicants by having him so arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided. I have considered the following aspects.
(1) Offence is not punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty;
(2) The only allegation against the applicants is that they were members of unlawful assembly however no any overt act is attributed to the present applicants but to the co-accused Shakeel who had made an assault;
(3) Present applicants came subsequently after the first part of offence was committed and applicants have not assaulted any of the witnesses or the complainant;
(4) Nothing is required to be recovered or discovered from the present applicants;
(5) No case fo
