SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Guj) 1087

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.
Vikrambhai Hamirbhai Virda - Appellant 
Vs.
State Of Gujarat & Anr. - Respondent 
CRIMINAL APPEAL (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 2432 of 2024
Decided On : 24-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR HARESH N JOSHI
For the Respondent: MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP

Anticipatory bail may be granted if prima facie evidence is lacking, considering the nature of allegations and the accused's cooperation with the investigation.

Headnote:

(A) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 18 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Anticipatory bail - The appellant challenged the rejection of anticipatory bail application in connection with serious allegations of sexual offences. The court considered the nature of allegations, the delay in filing the FIR, and the absence of prior criminal antecedents. The court emphasized the need for judicious discretion in bail matters, referencing established legal principles. (Paras 2.0, 5.0, 6.0, 8.0)

(B) Bail - Principles governing - The court reiterated that factors such as the gravity of the accusation, likelihood of absconding, and potential for witness tampering must be considered. The court noted that anticipatory bail may be granted if prima facie evidence is lacking. (Paras 5.0, 6.1, 7.0)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of coercing the victim into a sexual relationship under threat. The FIR was filed seven days post-incident, raising questions about its credibility. The appellant had interim relief since October 2024 and no prior criminal record.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations did not establish a prima facie case warranting denial of bail, allowing the appeal.

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the FIR, the nature of the allegations, and the applicability of Section 18 of the Atrocity Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of prima facie evidence and the appellant's cooperation with the investigation justified granting anticipatory bail, emphasizing that the trial court should not be influenced by preliminary observations.

Result: Appeal allowed.

ORDER :

Though served, respondent No.2 has chosen not to appear before this Court.

[1.0] ADMIT. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat.

[2.0] Present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “Atrocity Act”) challenging the order dated 11.10.2024 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, at Keshod in Criminal Misc. Application No.387 of 2024 whereby the learned Judge rejected the application filed by the present appellant under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”) seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11203030240683 of 2024 registered with Keshod Police Station, District Junagadh for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNS”) and sections 3(1)(w), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention Atrocities) Act.

[3.0] Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely involved in the offence. The appellant as well as victim both are major. The allegation is that under the pretext of getting issued the certificate, present applicant took undue advantage and called the victim at guest house and then pointing the knife forced the victim to develop sexual relations with the applicant and out of such consensual relationship, time and again the applicant and victim visited the guest house but as the raid was conducted, applicant and victim were found in the guest house and news item was published and hence, to save the skin, the victim has lodged the complaint belatedly after 7 days of the incident without explaining the delay. Further, the appellant is protected by way of interim relief since October, 2024 and has not misused such relief. Further, appellant is not having any past antecedent. As nothing is required to be recovered or discovered, no custodial interrogation is required. Therefore, looking to the role of the appellant and nature of the allegations, the appellant is required to be granted anticipatory bail by imposing suitable terms and conditions.

[4.0] Per contra, learned APP appearing for the respondent – State has opposed the present appeal on the ground that offence is serious in nature. Nonetheless, conduct of present appellant also deserves consideration. When the victim was going to police station to get record her statement and substantiate the allegations levelled against the appellant, the appellant chased her and threatened her not to depose against the appellant and therefore also, if the appellant is granted bail then the possibility of tampering with the evidence cannot be ruled out. Further, there is bar under Section 18 of the Atrocity Act and therefore also, the present offence being serious one, he has requested to dismiss the present appeal.

[5.0] 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) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top