Naransinh Amarsinh Bihola v. State of Gujarat…
Bench: Honourable Justice Samir J. Dave
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 21006 of 2022
The bench of Justice Samir J. Dave, J decided that when such a serious crime as murder is committed, amicable settlement is unwarranted as it equates to impeding or tampering with the witnesses or the evidence. In the current case, the accused had submitted a request for bail after being charged with crimes punishable by Sections 302(murder) 307(attempt to murder) and section114 of the Penal Code, 1860. As per section 114,
“Whenever any person who if absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence”
Although the ability to grant bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is discretionary, the Court noted that this authority must be used wisely.
According to the Court, it has long been understood that being held in custody while a trial is ongoing can result in significant hardship. Sometimes it is necessary to hold certain innocent people in custody until trial in order to ensure their appearance at the trial. In these situations, the necessity standard is used. The Court further ruled that punishing someone for an offence for which they have not been found guilty or depriving them of their liberty under any circumstances based solely on the suspicion that they will tamper with the justice system would be quite at odds with the concept of personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution in this country.
The Court noted that the complainant has filed an affidavit stating that the matter is amicably settled between the parties and if the accused is released on bail, he has no objection. The Court said that such practice is unwarranted, and it amounts to tempering with the evidence or witnesses, when such a serious offence of murder is committed. Thus, the Court held that such an affidavit on oath filed by the complainant cannot be considered, looking to the gravity and severity of the offence committed by the accused person. Hence, the Court rejected the bail application.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AMIT ARAVIND
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”