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) 9887

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M. R. MENGDEY, J
SUSHILABEN @ SAKU AJMELSINH BARIA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE CHARGESHEET) NO. 19910 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR TANMAY B KARIA
For the Respondents: MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL, APP

The court emphasized the importance of evaluating the nature of the offence and the applicant's circumstances before granting bail.

Headnote:This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for regular bail in connection with a serious offence resulting from an electrical shock. The court found sufficient reason to grant bail to the applicant considering the nature of allegations. The main question addressed was about the gravity of the offence and the applicant's flight risk. The court exercised discretion in favor of bail, imposing specific conditions to safeguard judicial processes.

Table of Content
1. principles of bail consideration. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments for granting bail. (Para 3)
3. final ruling on bail conditions. (Para 7)

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State.

2. This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No.11207024250940 of 2025 registered with Godhra Taluka Police Station, District Panchmahal

3. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that considering the nature of offence and role attributed to the applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

4. The learned APP appearing for the respondent State has vehemently submitted that the applicant herein happened to be an owner of the land from which the deceased was come in to contact with the fence and due to electrical shock, the deceased was died. Learned APP has, therefore, submitted that the offence is serious in nature and looking to the facts as well as the allegations levelled against the applicant, no discretion is required to be exercised.

5. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. As per the case of prosecution, the deceased had gone to the field of the present applicant wherein he came into contact with the fence and due to electrical shock, he had died. Having regard to the same, the present application deserves to be allowed.

6. This court has also 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.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegations made in the FIR and without discussing the evidence in details as well as without going into details, prima-facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence, the application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR, on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that;

(a) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence.

(b) shall maintain law and order and not to indulge in any criminal activities.

(c) shall furnish the documentary proof of complete, correct and present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and to the Trial Court at the time of executing the bond and shall not change residence without prior permission of the trial Court.

(d) shall provide contact numbers as well as the contact numbers of the sureties before the Trial Court. In case of change in such numbers inform in writing immediately to the trial Court.

(e) shall file an affidavit stating immovable properties whether self acquired or ancestral with description, location and present value of such properties before the Trial Court, if any.

(f) shall not leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court (g) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week. If accused does not possess passport, shall file an Affidavit to that effect.

(h) shall mark presence before the concerned police station once in a month for a period of six months between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.

8. The authoriti

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