Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J
RADHAKRISHANA DUDDELA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 18547 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: HL PATEL
For the Respondents: MS SM AHUJA, MR LB DABHI
Anticipatory bail should be denied in cases involving heinous crimes supported by substantial evidence against the applicant.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory bail - Application by original accused whose arrest is apprehended in connection with serious offences including murder - The court, while denying anticipatory bail, emphasized the heinous nature of allegations and substantial evidence of involvement, including mobile records and financial transactions. (Paragraphs 1-7)
(B) Anticipatory Bail - Criteria and considerations regarding the role and involvement of the accused as well as the gravity of the offences were discussed in relation to the criteria laid out by the Supreme Court in previous rulings. (Paragraph 6)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, a government servant not named in the FIR, sought anticipatory bail alleging that custodial interrogation was not necessary, but the court found prima facie evidence against him relating to a heinous crime involving conspiracy and murder.
Findings of Court:
The evidence presented established clear involvement by the applicant, and the seriousness of the accused's role as a husband to the victim influenced the decision against granting bail.
Issues: The main issues were the nature of the offences and the adequacy of evidence supporting the applicant's request for anticipatory bail, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's guidelines on the bail criteria.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that serious allegations supported by substantial evidence warranted the denial of anticipatory bail, per the directives of the Supreme Court regarding bail applications, emphasizing that anticipatory bail is not a blanket protection against arrest.
Result: Application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. anticipatory bail application details and allegations against the applicant. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by both the applicant and the state. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 3. court's evaluation of evidence and nature of the offence. (Para 5) |
| 4. legal criteria and considerations for denying anticipatory bail. (Para 6) |
| 5. conclusion regarding the dismissal of the application. (Para 7) |
ORDER
1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , the applicant – original accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered as C.R.No.11191028221025 of 2022 before Vejalpur Police Station, District: Ahmedabad for the offences under Sections 302, 450, etc. of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of the G.P. Act.
2. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed government servant and he is arraigned as an accused at the instance of the co-accused and is not named in the FIR. He submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides the applicant will be available during the course of investigation and will not flee away from the justice.
In view of the above, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions.
4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State has strongly opposed this application and granting anticipatory bail to the applicant looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.
5. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the investigation papers and have also taken into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the applicant–accused. I have also perused the police papers, wherein the role attributed to the present applicant is clearly mentioned. The offence is very heinous in nature, the wife was brutally killed by the present applicant and the prima facie material is found against the present applicant and his involvement was proved beyond doubt. The relevant material produced by the learned APP with regard to the involvement of the present applicant and the role played by him, he being a husband and serving in Intelligence Bureau and he is having a last mobile talk and the phone calls record with the co-accused, who committed the offence of murder at the behest and at the instructions of the present applicant. The Bank details of the present applicant also shows that there is a transaction with the other accused which reflects clear attribution of the present applicant involved in the alleged crime. It is also relevant to note herein that warrant under Section 70 of the Cr.P.C . also came to be issued vide order dated 10.11.2020 against the present applicant. It seems that till date, he has not co-operated with the investigating agency.
6. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Sushila Aggarwal and Others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, reported in AIR 2020 SC 831, wherein, the criteria enumerated by the Apex Court in paragraph 91 regarding the absconding persons that they do not deserve any protection under Section 438 of Cr.P.C . The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paragraph no.91 as under:-
- “This court, in the light of the above discussion in the two judgments, and in the light of the answers to the reference, hereby clarifies that the following need to be kept in mind by courts, dealing with applications under Section 438, Cr. PC:
(1) Consistent with the judgment in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab , 1980 (2) SCC 565 when a person complains of apprehension of arrest and approaches for order, t
