Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MRM
RONAK NAJMUDDIN HIRANI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
ORDER :
1. 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. 11210070240144 of 2024 registered with Bhestan Police Station, Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504 and 506 of the IPC.
2. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that in present offence, the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 09.03.2024 and since then he is in custody. He further submitted that the applicant had earlier preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.12065 of 2024, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 16.08.2024. However, thereafter, there is no progress in the trial. Moreover, after the dismissal of the earlier application, certain documents have come to notice of the present applicant, wherein it is categorically stated by the witness that the applicant herein had inflicted one blow fist blow on the chest of the deceased, and thereafter, an improved version has been given by the said person in the FIR that the present applicant had inflicted kicks and fist blows on the chest an
The court held that contradictions in witness statements do not justify bail when the nature of the crime is severe and no change in circumstances is presented.
The court denied bail based on the applicant's history of domestic abuse and lack of substantial trial progress, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations.
A successive bail application must demonstrate a change in circumstances to be considered; otherwise, it may be dismissed.
A successive bail application must demonstrate a significant change in circumstances since the prior dismissal; mere absence from the scene does not negate instigation of the crime.
Bail applications are denied when direct evidence of involvement in serious offences is presented, emphasizing the need for trial.
The court emphasized that bail should not be granted if there is a strong likelihood of witness tampering and the accused is charged with a serious offence.
The court ruled that the presence and active participation of the accused in the crime, supported by witness testimonies, justified the denial of bail despite claims of false implication.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
