IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 251 of 2024 With CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (REGULAR BAIL) NO. 3 of 2024 In R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 251 of 2024 ==========================================================
PARTHIJI MAFAJI THAKOR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DINESHKUMAR J PRAJAPATI(9979) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Date : 19/03/2025
ORDER :
(PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.)
ORDER IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION:
Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for the respondent – State.
ORDER IN CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (REGULAR BAIL) NO. 3 OF 2024:
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for the respondent – State.
2. By way of present application, the applicant – accused is praying to release him on regular bail during pendency of the present revision application preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 13.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deesa in Criminal Case No. 576 of 2008, which came to be confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deesa vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.1.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2021, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deesa has sentenced the applicant to undergo simple imprisonment of 7 years under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further simple imprisonment of 6 months.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the Criminal Revision Application is of the year 2024 and it will take some time to hear the revision application at final hearing stage. The applicant is in jail for more than one year. Considering the nature of injury and also the nature of allegations, role attributed to the applicant the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. The applicant has a good case on merits and hence, the order of the sentence may be suspended and the applicant may be released on regular bail on appropriate terms and condition.
4. Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has objected to the present application to grant regular bail and has submitted that the order of sentence is just and proper and no interference is required in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deesa confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deesa and hence, present application may be rejected.
5. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the document produced on record. Looking to the nature of injuries and more particularly the applicant has already undergone one year of incarceration, the application is required to be allowed and is hereby allowed and thereby, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court and on the following conditions:
(a) shall not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
(b) shall not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of this Court.
(c) shall furnish the present address of his residence to the Court concerned at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without the prior permission of the Court
(d) shall maintain law and order.
(e) shall not indulge in any activity leading to breach of public peace and tranquility.
6. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of as allowed.
Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
Bail granted based on time served and nature of injuries, with conditions to ensure compliance with law.
The court emphasized that a conviction in a criminal case must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, not merely on preponderance of probabilities.
The court held that the failure of the complainant to prove a legally enforceable debt justified the suspension of the applicant's sentence pending revision.
The court may grant bail after considering the gravity of the offense, the applicant's history of absconding, and the conditions necessary to ensure trial attendance.
The court ruled that prolonged incarceration without trial progress warrants bail, emphasizing the importance of timely justice.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt; if evidence is insufficient, the benefit of doubt favors the accused.
The court ruled that bail may be granted considering the nature of allegations, the applicant's role in the offense, and the absence of direct fatal involvement.
The conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was erroneous as the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt, warranting interim relief for the applicants.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.