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) 627

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 21356 of 2024 ==========================================================
SINU @ CHENSING JAMSINH VASUNIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ARJUNSINGH B CHAUHAN(11510) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR KRUTIK PARIKH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 17/03/2025

Petitioner Advocates:MR ARJUNSINGH B CHAUHAN(11510) ,Respondent Advocate: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)

The court granted bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhit, 2023, emphasizing the importance of conditions to prevent misuse of liberty and ensure the applicant's presence at trial.

Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhit, 2023 - Section 483 - Application for regular bail - The applicant sought bail in connection with FIR C.R.NO. 135 of 2010, arrested in 2024 after a significant delay - The court noted that the investigation was complete and charge-sheet filed, and other co-accused were granted bail - The court emphasized the need for conditions to ensure the applicant's presence at trial. (Paras 2, 5, 7, 8)

(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail - The court considered the nature of the allegations and the applicant's conduct, ruling that the applicant was entitled to bail under specified conditions to prevent misuse of liberty. (Paras 4, 8)

Facts of the case:
The applicant was arrested in 2024 for an offence registered in 2010, with no prior attempts by the Investigating Agency to secure his presence. Other co-accused had been granted bail.

Findings of Court:
The court found it appropriate to grant bail, subject to conditions ensuring the applicant does not misuse his liberty or obstruct the investigation.

Issues: The main issues included the delay in arrest, the nature of the allegations, and the applicant's conduct during the intervening years.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the significant delay in arrest and the completion of the investigation warranted the exercise of discretion in favor of bail, emphasizing the importance of conditions to safeguard the prosecution's interests.

Result: Application for bail 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. 135 of 2010 registered with Kosamba Police Station, Surat

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 offence in question came to be registered in the Year-2010 and the applicant came to be arrested in the Year-2024. The applicant had actively participated in commission of the offence in question. Having regard to the conduct on the part of present applicant, there is an apprehension that if the applicant is ordered to be enlarged on bail, he may not be available for the purpose of trial. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application.

5. 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. The offence in question came to be registered against the present applicant and the other co-accused in the Year-2010. However, the applicant came to be arrested only in the Year-2024 after registration of the FIR. However, in the interregnum, the Investigating Agency does not appear to have undertaken any proceedings for securing the presence of present applicant. The other co-accused, who are similarly situated to the present applicant have been considered for grant of bail either by this Court or by the concerned Sessions Court.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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 territory of Surat City 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;

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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 ba

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