Back
Grants Bail to Jigarbhai Bhanubhai Gohil, Slams Poor Investigation in Murder Case
Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar called the state of affairs "very sorry," noting that investigating officers frequently fail to assist the court with proper case papers and instructions.
The on , granted regular bail to Jigarbhai Bhanubhai Gohil, who had been arrested in connection with a murder case registered at . The bench of Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar criticized the prosecution for its " " and the investigating officer's repeated absence from court proceedings.
A 'Very Sorry State of Affairs'
The case involved allegations under
. The applicant argued that he was implicated solely based on a
and that no incriminating material connected him to the crime. When the matter was listed for the third time, the investigating officer failed to appear, with the court being informed that he had been transferred. Only a constable was present, who, as the court noted, was
"a messenger and not conversant with investigation papers."
Justice Suthar observed,
"It is very sorry state of affairs in number of matters, concerned investigating officers failed to remain present with investigation papers and properly give instructions to learned APP and assist the Court and if in some cases, investigating officer remain present, though they do not have knowledge about the investigation and always they look forward assistance of his writer/constable."
The court had earlier directed the IO to personally appear and assist the prosecution, but these directions were ignored.
Lack of Incriminating Evidence
The prosecution relied on two main circumstances: CDR location data and the purchase of Vimal bags by the accused. However, the court found these to be "piecemeal and tit-bit" and insufficient to connect Gohil to the actual commission of the crime. Regarding the "last seen" theory, the court noted that the CDR locations were subsequent in time and that no evidence of common intention or conspiracy was presented.
Specifically, the court stated,
"Though the alleged offences are serious and punishable with life imprisonment or death, the material against the applicant cannot be accepted in such a casual and perfunctory manner. The applicant cannot be deprived of his
on the basis of a
and improper assistance to the Court."
The prosecution had cited 74 witnesses, but not a single witness had been examined at trial, leading the court to conclude that the prosecution was "not interested" in proceeding expeditiously.
Bail on Grounds of
Invoking the
to a
under
, the court cited several
precedents, including
,
, and
, to underscore that
"
."
The court noted that keeping the accused in custody for an indefinite period would amount to . It also took into account the applicant's past antecedents but held that the lack of progress in the trial and the absence of any concrete evidence against him warranted bail.
The Decision
Justice Suthar allowed the application and ordered Gohil's release on a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety. The court imposed several conditions, including a ban on leaving Gujarat without permission, surrender of passport, and monthly attendance at the police station for six months. The trial court was also directed not to be influenced by the preliminary observations made in the bail order.
The ruling serves as a stern reminder of the judiciary's expectation that investigating officers take their duties seriously, especially in serious criminal cases.
