IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 4123 of 2026 ==========================================================

DEEP JAYESHBHAI INDRAVADAN SONI(DEEP JAYESHBHAI SONI AS MENTIONED IN FIR)

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR DEVARSH P PANDYA(12986) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. MEET THAKKAR, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 07/04/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. By filing the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“a. To allow the present Petition.

b. To quashing and setting aside of order dated 13.02.2026 cumulatively passed below Exhibit 72 and Exhibit 73 by the Ld. 3^rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Sessions Case No. 91 of 2024 and / or all proceedings subsequent thereto (ANNEXURE-A) and further be pleased to expunge / delete the objected portion of the evidence;

c. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this application, to stay the operation of order dated 13.02.2026 cumulatively passed below Exhibit 72 and Exhibit 73 by the Ld. 3^rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Sessions Case No. 91 of 2024 and / or all proceedings subsequent thereto (ANNEXURE-A) and / or further be pleased to stay the proceedings of Sessions Case No.91 of 2024 currently Pending before the Ld. 3^rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharuch;

d. To pass any other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the petition are such that the petitioner herein is facing a trial for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 376 of the Indian Penal Code and other allied offences. During the course of trial of the said offences, being Sessions Case No. 91 of 2014 before the learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch, the examination-in-chief of the victim was being recorded on 29.12.2025. During her examination-in- chief, the public prosecutor had put a question to the victim, “what happened thereafter”, to which she replied, “Deep also came to his house at Dandiabazaar, where they sat together and Deep insisted”. The public prosecutor put another question, “insisted for what?”, to which the victim had replied, “for physical relations”. Thereafter, the public prosecutor asked the victim, “what did you tell him?.

2.1 An objection was taken to the last question referred to herein above, on behalf of the Petitioner, contending that the question sought to be asked by the public prosecutor was a leading question and a leading question cannot be allowed to be asked by the prosecution to a witness.

2.2 The learned Sessions Judge had passed the order on the objections raised by the petitioner that the decision as regards the admissibility of the question shall be decided at the time of final disposal of the case.

2.3 Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had approached this court by filing Special Criminal Application No. 1736 of 2026. This court, vide order dated 6.02.2026 had asked the learned trial court to decide the aspect of admissibility of the question within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of the order, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Criminal Trials Guidelines regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others. Pursuant to the order passed by this court, the learned Sessions court has disallowed the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner vide order dated 13.02.2026.

2.4 Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this court.

3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Devarsh Pandya appearing for the petitioner and learned APP for the Respondent – State.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Pandya submitted that the question which was sought to be asked by the public prosecutor to the victim, amounts to a leading question and, in view of the provisions