Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MRM
PRATIK @ PIYUSH VINODBHAI TIWARI – 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. 11191015240503 of 2024 registered with Nikol Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 189, 189(2), 115(2) and 296(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951.
2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that in present offence, the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. The present applicant has been falsely implicated in the present offence. The applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 09.12.2024 and since then he is in custody.
2.1 Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that there is a material available in the form of CCTV footage, which indicates that the applicant had entered the society, wherein the incident alleged in the FIR had taken place after the incident was over and his presence at the scene of offence was for a very short while. The applicant has not played any active role in commission of the offence in question.
2.2 Learned Senior Advocate a
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.
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.
Bail applications are denied when direct evidence of involvement in serious offences is presented, emphasizing the need for trial.
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.
Bail may be granted even in serious offences if the applicant shows compliance willingness and no flight risk, emphasizing the need for a balanced assessment of case facts.
The court emphasized that the role of the accused as a facilitator rather than a principal offender, alongside the absence of flight risk, justified the granting of bail under specified conditions.
The court denied bail due to the serious nature of allegations involving sexual abuse of minors, emphasizing victim protection and the integrity of the investigation.
Insufficient evidence linking the applicant to the crime justified the granting of bail, emphasizing the need for concrete proof in bail applications.
The presumption of innocence allows for interim bail confirmation when the applicant cooperates with the investigation and no prior criminal record exists.
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
