Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(GUJ) 737

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 170 of 2025 ==========================================================
SUKABHAI HARIBHAI BHARWAD (SUKHABHAI HARIBHAI SHIYADIYA)
Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================
Appearance:
MS KAILASBEN D GOPANI(12735) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 S M KIKANI(7596) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR HK PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 17/03/2025

Petitioner Advocates:S M KIKANI(7596) ,Respondent Advocate: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)

Anticipatory bail granted due to lack of prima facie evidence against the applicant, emphasizing the need for judicious discretion in bail matters.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 109, 352, 351(3) - Anticipatory bail application - Applicant sought bail in connection with FIR for multiple offences - Court found no prima facie evidence linking applicant to the alleged offence, emphasizing the need for judicious discretion in bail matters. (Paras 1.0, 4.0, 6.0)

(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail - Factors include nature of accusation, antecedents of the applicant, and possibility of fleeing from justice - Court reiterated that detailed examination of evidence should be avoided at the bail stage. (Paras 4.0, 5.0)

Facts of the case:
The applicant was accused in an FIR related to a brawl over parking, where his son was involved. The applicant claimed no direct involvement or injury caused, and there was no evidence against him. (Paras 2.0, 4.0)

Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence connecting the applicant to the offence and allowed the anticipatory bail application with conditions. (Paras 5.0, 6.0)

Issues: The main issues included the sufficiency of evidence against the applicant and the appropriateness of custodial interrogation. (Paras 4.0, 6.0)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of prima facie evidence and the applicant's cooperation with the investigation warranted the granting of anticipatory bail. (Paras 4.0, 5.0)

Result: Application allowed.

ORDER :

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)

RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State of Gujarat.

[1.0] By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11214020242188 of 2024 registered with Kamrej Police Station, Surat Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 109, 352 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”).

[2.0] Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and the applicant has been falsely enroped in the offence. Prima facie there is no evidence to connect the present applicant with the alleged offence which took place on 22.09.2024. Present applicant did receive the phone call which lead to the brawl in connection of parking the vehicle and brother of the complainant one Dilipbhai had made assault with spade to son of the present applicant who is arraigned as accused No.1 who is arrested and then released on bail. Alongwith co-accused who happens to be the brother of the applicant came to the spot but no any over act is revealed against the applicant. The applicant has not caused any injury and even there is no any past antecedent of the applicant. Hence, now nothing remains to be recovered or discovered from the present applicant and therefore, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

[3.0] Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that applicant is named in the FIR and while rescuing his son the applicant has committed the offence and therefore, custodial interrogation is required to unearth the truth. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present application.

[4.0] 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 applicant 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 applicant to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant 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) Prima facie there is no evidence to connect the present applicant with the alleged offence which took place on 22.09.2024. Present applicant did receive the phone call which lead to the brawl in connection of parking the vehicle and brother of the complainant one Dilipbhai had made assault with spade to son of the present applicant who is arraigned as accused No.1 who is arrested and then released on bail. Alongwith co-accused who happens to be the brother of the applicant came to the spot but no any over act is revealed against the applicant;

(2) The applicant has not caused any injury however, even the injured who sustained injury in the alleged offence are out of danger and discharged from the hospital;

(3) Applicant is arraigned as accused in aid of sections