Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 26915
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J
KAJU MAVSINGBHAI PALAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 19683 of 2024
MR KARTIKSINH H CHAMPAVAT(12148), MR. NEERAJ SHARMA, APP
Bail may be granted when there is no evidence linking the applicant to the crime, particularly in cases involving vulnerable victims.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 394, 395, 397, 398, 455, 506(2), 114 - Bail application for regular bail post charge sheet submission - Applicant arrested with no recovery linked to him, not identified in Test Identification Parade, and complainant failed to appear - Court considers the applicant's circumstances and grants bail. (Paras 1, 2, 7, 8)
(B) Discretion in Granting Bail - Court may exercise discretion in favor of the applicant when no substantial evidence links them to the crime, especially in cases involving elderly victims. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was arrested on July 26, 2023, in connection with multiple offenses including robbery against an elderly victim. The FIR initially named an unknown person, with the applicant's name added later. The complainant's non-appearance led to a bailable warrant against them.
Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence linking the applicant to the crime, emphasizing the lack of identification and the complainant's absence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant should be granted bail given the circumstances of the case and the absence of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the absence of recovery or identification, discretion should favor bail, particularly in cases involving vulnerable victims.
Result: Application allowed, bail granted.
ORAL ORDER
1. The present successive application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.No. 112080032 30584 of 2022 registered with the Gandhidham-2 (University) Police Station of the offence punishable under Sections 394, 395, 397, 398, 455, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant was arrested on 26.07.2023, and the present application for bail has been filed after the submission of the charge sheet, as the investigation has already concluded. He further states that there has been no recovery or discovery attributed to the applicant. Moreover, the applicant was not identified during the Test Identification Parade. The FIR was initially filed against an unknown person, and during the investigation, the names of the applicant and other co-accused were added. A charge sheet was subsequently filed, the charges have been framed, and summons issued to the complainant. However, the complainant failed to appear, leading to the issuance of a bailable warrant against them. The learned advocate also submits that four other offenses have been registered against the applicant. In two of these cases, the applicant has been acquitted, while the remaining two are still pending. One of the pending offenses was registered in 2014, and another recent FIR has been filed under the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015. In light of these factual submissions, the learned advocate for the applicant respectfully urges this Court to grant bail to the applicant.
3. Learned APP Mr. Sharma, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, has vehemently opposed the present application. He submitted that the applicant is a hardcore criminal with multiple offenses registered against him, including a recent FIR under the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015. Mr. Sharma further argued that similar offenses have been registered against the applicant in the past, establishing him as a habitual offender. In the present case, the victim is a 90- year-old woman, and such offenses are reported frequently in the State. Considering the above submissions, the application of the present applicant may not be entertained and the applicant may not be released on bail.
4. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.
5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers of the investigation and considered the allegations leveled against the applicant and the role played by the applicant.
6. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in [2012]1 SCC 40 as well as in case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2022)10 SCC 51 .
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court observes that there has been no recovery or discovery linked to the applicant, and he was not identified during the Test Identification Parade. Furthermore, the FIR was initially registered against an unknown person, with the applicant's name being added only later in the investigation. The victim in this case is approximately 90 years old. Additionally, although summons were issued to the complainant, the complainant did not appear, resulting in the issuance of a bailable warrant. In view of the above, this Court finds it appropriate to exercise discretion in favor of the applicant.
8. Hence, the present application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with C.R.No. 112080032 30584 of 2022 registered with the Gandhidham-2 (University) Police Station , on executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the tri
