Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

GUJARAT HIGH COURT
J.B.PARDIWALA, J
HEMENDRABHAI AMBALAL MAKWANA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO. 485 of 2013 | CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 626 of 2013 | CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 705 of 2013

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR R.J. GOSWAMI
For the Respondents: MR MITESH R AMIN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, RULE SERVED BY DS

Bail must be judiciously granted, especially in serious cases involving domestic abuse, to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, Sections 302, 306, 304

(B), 498A, 323, 294(b), 114 | Dowry Prohibition Act, Sections 3 and 7 | Code of Criminal Procedure, Sections 397, 401, 438, 439 - Bail - Challenged legality and validity of bail granted during investigation for serious offences such as dowry death and abetment of suicide - Court emphasized that discretion in granting bail must be exercised judiciously, considering the gravity of charges, especially where the deceased was five months pregnant and under duress - Any grant of bail in such cases requires careful analysis of circumstances and potential threats to justice. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 24, 26)

(B) Appeals - Cancellation of bail - Principles to be considered while allowing cancellation of bail, emphasizing that severity of allegations and social implications should govern discretion - An order of bail, once granted, may still be reconsidered when compelling factors arise. (Paras 21, 22, 23)

Facts of the case:
The applicant contested bail orders to the accused linked to the suicide of the deceased, who faced persistent mistreatment, clearly outlining dowry-related pressures and domestic abuse, culminating in her tragic death on 8th July 2013, shortly after demanding assistance due to ill-treatment.

Findings of Court:
Court found that the trial court's decisions on bail lacked adequate reasoning and bypassed critical factors, warranting cancellation, particularly concerning the husband’s bail, deemed unjust in light of severe allegations and the circumstances surrounding the deceased's suicide.

Issues: Key issues revolved around the appropriateness of bail given the serious nature of the charges and prior allegations of domestic violence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that liberating an accused under such circumstances must strictly adhere to the principles of justice and weigh heavily on societal safety against individuals' liberties. It ruled that the husband’s bail was unwarranted, advising immediate surrender.

Result: The revision application for cancellation of bail was allowed; the order of bail stands quashed.

Table of Content
1. facts surrounding the suicide and allegations of domestic violence. (Para 5 , 6)
2. arguments regarding the reasons against granting bail. (Para 12 , 15 , 16)
3. judicial observations on the need for careful consideration of bail. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 23)
4. the court's conclusions regarding the gravity of the offence and reasoning for bail cancellation. (Para 24 , 26)
5. final decision for quashing of bail. (Para 27 , 28)

JUDGEMENT

1. Since the issues involved in the above captioned applications are interconnected, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.485 OF 2013

2.1 By this application under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , the petitioner-original first informant calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 29th July, 2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Criminal Misc. Application No.430 of 2013 filed by the respondent No.3 (original accused No.3) for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , by which the learned Judge allowed the application and ordered release of the accused on anticipatory bail in connection with C.R. No.I-128 of 2013 registered with the Chandkheda Police Station of the offence under sections 302, 306, 304(B), 498A, 323, 294(b) read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act .

3. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.626 OF 2013

3.1 By this application under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , the petitioner-original first informant calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 25th September, 2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Criminal Misc. Application No.563 of 2013 filed by the respondent No.3 (original accused No.2) for regular bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , by which the learned Judge allowed the application and ordered release of the accused on regular bail in connection with C.R. No.I-128 of 2013 registered with the Chandkheda Police Station of the offence under sections 302, 306, 304(B), 498A, 323, 294(b) read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act .

4. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.705 OF 2013

4.1 By this application under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , the petitioner-original first informant calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 19th November, 2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Criminal Misc. Application No.674 of 2013 filed by the respondent No.3 (original accused No.1) for regular bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , by which the learned Judge allowed the application and ordered release of the accused on regular bail in connection with C.R. No.I-128 of 2013 registered with the Chandkheda Police Station of the offence under sections 302, 306, 304(B), 498A, 323, 294(b) read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act .

5. It appears that the original first informant, the brother of the deceased lodged a first information report in connection with the incident of suicide committed by his sister on 8th July,

2013. In the first information report, three persons have been named as the accused (1) Sandipkumar Natwarlal Makwana (husband) (2) Manjulaben Natwarlal Makwana (mother-in- law(3) Parulben Akashbhai Makwana (sister-in-law). The case of the prosecution in brief is that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the accused No.1 on 12th May, 2011. The accused No.1-husband was working in the police department as a police constable. The father-in-law of the deceased is also working in the police department. The accused No.2 i.e. the mother-in-law and the accused No.3 i.e. the sister-in-law used to harass the deceased mentally as we

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

GUJARAT HIGH COURTJ.B.PARDIWALA, JHEMENDRABHAI AMBALAL MAKWANA – AppellantVersusSTATE OF GUJARAT – RespondentCRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO. 485 of 2013 | CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 626 of 2013 | CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 705 of 2013

Bail must be judiciously granted, especially in serious cases involving domestic abuse, to prevent miscarriage of justice.

GUJARAT HIGH COURT
J.B.PARDIWALA, J
HEMENDRABHAI AMBALAL MAKWANA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO. 485 of 2013 | CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 626 of 2013 | CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 705 of 2013