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) 665

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 1630 of 2025 ==========================================================
SHANIBHAI MAHESHBHAI @ SUKHABHAI VEGDA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 12/03/2025

Petitioner Advocates:MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) ,Respondent Advocate: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)

The court emphasized that bail is a rule and jail is an exception, considering personal liberty and the nature of allegations in granting bail.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 64 - Application for successive regular bail - The applicant, aged 25, was arrested for alleged involvement in administering poison to a victim with whom he had a consensual relationship - The court considered factors such as the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, and the absence of past antecedents - The court emphasized that bail is a rule and jail is an exception, referencing the principle of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 2, 5, 7, 8)

(B) Bail Jurisprudence - The court highlighted that the discretion to grant bail should be exercised judiciously, considering the facts and circumstances of each case, including the possibility of tampering with evidence and the nature of the offence. (Paras 5, 8)

Facts of the case:
The applicant was arrested on 09.09.2024 for allegedly administering poison to a victim with whom he had a consensual relationship. Both parties survived after consuming the substance. The applicant has no prior criminal record. (Paras 3, 6)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant's continued detention would amount to pre-trial conviction and that the case warranted the exercise of discretion to grant bail. (Paras 7, 8)

Issues: The main issues included the nature of the allegations, the applicant's involvement, and the appropriateness of granting bail considering the circumstances. (Paras 4, 5)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant should be granted bail due to the nature of the allegations, the absence of prior convictions, and the principle that bail is the norm. (Paras 7, 8)

Result: The application for successive regular bail is allowed.

ORDER :

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)

[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

[2.0] The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for successive regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11203039240325 /2024 registered with Mendarda Police Station, Junagadh for the offences punishable under Section 64 of the BNS.

[3.0] The learned advocate for the applicants submits that the applicant has no involvement in the offence and has been falsely implicated. Now nothing is required to be recovered and discovered from the accused. Present applicant is 25 years old and he is arrested on 09.09.2024. No past antecedent is reported against the present applicant. There is consensual relationship between the present applicant and victim as family family came to know about the relationships and both have consumed poinsonous substance and after the said incident, they were survive. Commencement of trial will take its own time. He therefore submits that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on successive regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

[4.0] The Learned APP has strongly opposed the present application and submitted that there was no any consent as present applicant is a married man and he developed relationship with victim and forcefully administered dose of poisonous substance and taken undue advantage. Statement under Section 182 of BNSS is recorded. Prima facie involvement is there. If he released on bail, then possibility cannot be ruled out to tamper with the evidence. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present application for successive regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

[5.0] While granting bail, the Court has to consider the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and the following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses and threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations are required to be considered.

[6.0] I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the investigation papers. In present case, the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Following aspects have been considered:

1. Charge-sheet is filed;

2. Applicant is arrested on 09.092024;

3. commencement of trial will take its own time;

4. charge yet to be framed;

5. So far as offence under Section 64 of the BNS is concerned, victim is major and applicant is 25 years old, due to affairs the victim eloped with the present applicant. Thereafter, both have consumed poisonous substance;

6. Offence is not punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty;

[7.0] This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012]1 SCC 40 as well as in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1978)1 SCC 240. Obviously, the conclusion of trial will take time and keeping the accused behind the bars is nothing but amounts to pre-trial conviction and therefore, considering the celebrated principle of bail jurisprudence is that “bail is a rule and jail is exception” as well as the concept of personal

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