HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY, J
BABULAL GANGARAM PRAJAPATI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE CHARGESHEET) NO. 6369 of 2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 483 - Application for regular bail - The applicant, accused of assault causing severe injuries, sought bail after the investigation concluded and charge-sheet was filed - The court noted the applicant's willingness to comply with conditions for bail and that the victims were stable - The court emphasized three factors for bail consideration: prima facie case, availability of the applicant, and witness tampering concerns. (Paras 2, 6, 7, 8)
(B) Bail - Conditions for granting bail - The court granted bail subject to conditions including maintaining law and order, not tampering with evidence, and regular reporting to police - The court clarified that its observations should not influence the trial court. (Paras 8, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The applicant sought bail in connection with an FIR for assault with an iron pipe, leading to severe injuries to victims, who were reported stable. The applicant had been in custody since 28.2.2025.
Findings of Court:
The application for bail was allowed based on the nature of allegations, the applicant's custody duration, and the stability of the victims, with specific conditions imposed for release.
Issues: The main issues included whether the applicant posed a flight risk and if there was a prima facie case against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's release on bail was warranted given the circumstances, highlighting the importance of the three factors in bail considerations, and ensuring conditions to prevent witness tampering were applied.
Result: Application for bail allowed.
ORDER :
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the Respondent-State.
2. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ) for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11191045250178 of 2025 registered with Sola High Court Police Station. Ahmedabad City.
3. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent – State.
4. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant has good reputation in the society and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.
5. Per contra, learned APP has vehemently opposed the present application for grant of regular bail contending that the applicant herein had assaulted the victims with an iron pipe and had given blows on the vital parts of their body. Thus, the victims had sustained severe injuries in the incident. The investigation of the offence is still in progress. Learned APP therefore submitted that looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.
6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. From the record it appears that the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. From the record it appears that scuffle had taken place between the parties on the issue of recovery of money. In the said scuffle, the applicant is alleged to have assaulted the victims with an iron pipe. The victims have sustained severe injuries because of the said assault. However, the condition of the victims are stated to be stable and out of danger. Considering the same, the application deserves consideration.
7. This court has considered the following aspects:
(a) As per catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, there are mainly 3 factors which are required to be considered by this court i.e. prima facie case, availability of Applicant accused at the time of trial and tampering and hampering with the witnesses by the accused.
(b) That the learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant Accused is not likely to flee away.
(c) That the Applicant is in custody since 28.2.2025.
(d) The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40.
8. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the record produced in this case as well as taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of accusation, availability of the Applicant Accused at the time of Trial etc. and the role attributed to the present Applicant accused, the present Application deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. This Court has also gone through the FIR and police papers and also the earlier order passed by the learned Sessions Court where the learned Sessions Judge has disallowed the bail Application at initial stage. The Applicant Accused is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions that the applicant shall:
(a) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence.
(b) maintain law and order and not to indulge in any criminal activities.
(c) furnish the documentary proof of complete, correct and present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and to the Trial Court at the time of executing the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of the trial Court.
(d) p
The court emphasized that bail may be granted if the applicant shows no flight risk and the investigation is complete, while imposing strict conditions to prevent tampering with evidence.
The court granted bail based on insufficient evidence linking the applicant to the crime, emphasizing the need for a prima facie case.
The court ruled that prolonged incarceration without trial progress warrants bail, emphasizing the importance of timely justice.
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 bail may be granted considering the nature of allegations, the applicant's role in the offense, and the absence of direct fatal involvement.
The court emphasized the balance between the severity of the offence and the rights of the accused, allowing bail based on the Applicant's reputation and the victims' stable condition.
The court established that bail can be granted by considering the nature of allegations, the applicant's reputation, and compliance with specific conditions to ensure trial integrity.
The court granted bail considering the nature of the offence and the applicant's willingness to comply with conditions, emphasizing the balance between individual rights and public interest.
The court granted bail considering the applicant's age and lack of flight risk, emphasizing the need for strict compliance with conditions to prevent tampering with evidence.
The court granted bail considering the applicant's age and the nature of allegations, emphasizing the need for careful evaluation of bail conditions.
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.