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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 9198

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M. R. MENGDEY, J
KAMLESHPAL RAMPRAVESHPAL PAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 14539 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR JIGAR L PATEL
For the Respondents: MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL, APP

The court granted bail considering the applicant's reputation, gravity of allegations, and ensuring compliance with conditions while addressing risks related to flight and witness tampering.

Headnote:In this matter concerning bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the court considered the nature of the allegations which involved theft of chemicals. The applicant's past good reputation and willingness to comply with bail conditions were weighed against prior criminal antecedents and the potentially serious nature of the crime. The court emphasized the necessity for evaluation of prima facie cases and risks of flight. Ultimately, the application for bail was granted with conditions ensuring compliance and regulation of the applicant's whereabouts during the trial.

Table of Content
1. description of application and initial court response. (Para 2 , 3)
2. arguments from both sides regarding bail application. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's considerations and factors influencing the bail decision. (Para 6 , 7)
4. outcome of the bail application and granted conditions. (Para 8)
5. final administrative directives from the court. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the Respondent State.

2. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11211045250187 of 2025 registered with Sayla Police Station, Surendranagar.

3. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent – State.

4. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant has good reputation in the society and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. Per contra, learned APP has opposed the present application for grant of regular bail contending that the present Applicant was found involved in the activity of stealing the chemicals from the Tankers. The Applicant is having another antecedents of similar nature. He is the resident of Uttar Pradesh. Learned APP has therefore submitted that looking to the nature of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicants and the Application may be dismissed.

6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. From the record it appears that the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. As per the case of the prosecution, the role attributed to the Applicant is to the effect that the Applicant along with the other co-accused were found involved in the activity of stealing the chemicals from the Tankers. Having regard to the nature of offence and the allegations levelled against the Applicant, the Application deserves consideration.

7. This court has considered the following aspects:

(a) As per catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, there are mainly 3 factors which are required to be considered by this court i.e. prima facie case, availability of Applicant accused at the time of trial and tampering and hampering with the witnesses by the accused.

(b) That the learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant Accused is not likely to flee away.

(c) That the Applicant is in custody.

(d) The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. Reported in (2012) 1 SCC

40.

8. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the record produced in this case as well as taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of accusation, availability of the Applicant Accused at the time of Trial etc. and the role attributed to the present Applicant accused, the present Application deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. This Court has also gone through the FIR and police papers and also the earlier order passed by the learned Sessions Court where the learned Sessions Judge has disallowed the bail Application at initial stage. The Applicant Accused is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions that the applicant shall:

(a) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence. (b) maintain law and order and not to indulge in any criminal activities.

(c) furnish the documentar

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