##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 1744 of 2026 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI sd/-

==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No no ==========================================================

PARMAR PARULBEN VIJAYKUMAR @ DARBAR PARULBEN VIJAYKUMAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

JAY R SHAH(8428) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR JINESH H KAPADIA(5601) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ROHAN H RAVAL ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Date : 27/10/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By way of the present revision application under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNSS”), the applicant – original complainant has prayed to modify the judgment and order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Sessions Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.356 of 2024, whereby, while confirming the conviction, the learned Sessions Court has extended the benefit of probation to the original accused Nos.1 to 4 –

respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein.

2. Heard Mr. Jay R. Shah, learned advocate for the applicant – original complainant and Mr. Rohan H. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 – State.

3. Mr. Jay R. Shah, learned advocate for the applicant, has submitted that the accused – Bhavnaben is the sitting Sarpanch of the village and that she and her family members are politically influential persons in the locality. It is further submitted that even after the commission of the present offence, the accused persons have continued to indulge in serious offences against the society and several criminal antecedents are registered against them, which clearly reflects their settled propensity towards crime. It is submitted that such antecedents were specifically brought to the notice of the learned Sessions Court by the applicant by way of written objections; however, the learned Sessions Court has failed to consider the said material and no finding has been recorded thereon.

3.1 It is further submitted that before extending the benefit of probation, the learned Sessions Court was duty bound to examine the character, conduct and antecedents of the accused persons, along with the nature of the offence and the attending circumstances of the case. In the present case, none of the said considerations have been properly appreciated. The learned Sessions Court has solely relied upon the report of the Probation Officer, which is deficient and unreliable, without independently testing the same against the material available on record. The objections filed by the applicant, specifically pointing out the antecedents and the influential position of the accused persons, have neither been considered nor dealt with in the impugned judgment and order. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and order is perverse, passed without due application of mind and contrary to the settled principles governing the grant of probation and hence, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, Mr. Rohan H. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State, has vehemently opposed the present revision application and submitted that the learned Sessions Court has not committed any error in extending the benefit of probation to the accused persons. It is submitted that the benefit of probation has been extended subject to conditions and in the event of any breach thereof, appropriate action could have been taken against the accused persons; however, till date, no untoward incident has been reported against them. It is, therefore, subm