Tag Archives: #Gujarathighcourt

TITLE Suryadipsinh Sukhdevsinh Jadeja Versus State of Gujarat

Decided On August 29, 2023

15492 of 2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Hasmukh

INTRODUCTION-

The applicant accused has asked for anticipatory bail in the current application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in the event that he is arrested in connection with the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 363 of the Penal Code, 1860.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The applicant claims that his maternal grand-son’s initiative led to the complaint being filed. The complaint was made by the complainant’s maternal grandfather because a disagreement between the complainant’s daughter and his son-in-law led to the removal of his nephew (the complainant’s maternal grandson), who was living with him. Because the present applicant is the complainant’s nephew’s biological father, the ingredients of the offense are not proved. The applicant claims that no evidence has been presented against the current applicant, and that because he is a law-abiding citizen, no incarceration is necessary because he will cooperate with investigators and be available for questioning.

Therefore, he asks that anticipatory bail be granted to him.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who is advocating for the defendant, Given the seriousness of the offence and the state’s opposition to anticipatory bail, the Coordinate Bench of the Court and the Honourable Apex Court both ordered the applicant to turn over custody of the child to the complainant or the mother, establishing a prima facie case for an offence. Therefore, he asks that the current application be denied because a prima facie offence has been established given the seriousness of the punishment for the offence.

It is equally necessary for the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously, and strictly in accordance with the fundamental principles outlined in a wealth of decisions by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the subject after hearing the learned advocate for the parties and reading the investigation papers. It is well established that, among other circumstances, the considerations for a bail application should be , would be sufficient to hold the accused in judicial custody and consider the prosecution’s request for a police remand. It is made clear that the applicant, even if remanded to police custody, shall be released immediately following the completion of such period of police remand, subject to other requirements of this anticipatory bail order.

“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.”

Written by- Steffi Desousa

8 Sep

On the grounds of preserving public peace, the public prosecutor makes an argument against the applicant’s anticipatory bail. Gujarat High Court grants bail.

TITLE Bipinsinh Shivubha Zala Versus State of Gujarat

Decided On September 1, 2023

15480 of 2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Hasmukh

INTRODUCTION- The applicant accused requested for himself to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest for offences punishable by Sections 307, 326, 323, 504, 506(2), and 114 of the Penal Code, 1860, as well as Section 135 of the GP Act through this application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The applicant claims that because of the nature of the allegations, a custodial interrogation is not required at this time. In addition, the applicant is accessible throughout the investigation and won’t resist justice. An expert defence attorney claims that the current applicant is innocent and that he did not actively participate in the incident. According to the argument, the applicant has been unjustly accused of a crime and hasn’t committed any overt acts.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

A knowledgeable attorney for the applicant claims that the applicant is prepared and willing to comply with all requirements, including the imposition of restrictions on the Investigating Agency’s ability to ask the appropriate court for his remand. He would also argue that after the Investigating Agency files such a request, the accused applicant may be allowed to file a merits-based opposition.

The State has objected to the grant of anticipatory bail due to the nature and seriousness of the offence, according to Learned Additional Public Prosecutor who is testifying on behalf of the respondent. A custodial interrogation is necessary because the offence is serious in nature, the learned additional public prosecutor has argued. It is claimed that the weapon needs to be found. The learned APP has also claimed that public tranquilly may have been violated.

It is equally necessary for the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously, and strictly in accordance with the fundamental principles outlined in a wealth of decisions by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the subject after hearing the learned advocate for the parties and reading the investigation papers. It is well established that among other circumstances, the considerations for a bail application include the clear that the applicant, even if remanded to the custody of the police, shall be released right away after the completion of such period of police remand, subject to other requirements of this anticipatory bail order.

Written by- Steffi Desousa

8 Sep

Gujarat High Court considers the basic grounds to grant bail accused under section 387, 120(B), 34, 389, and 201 of the Penal Code,

TITLE – Manish Champaklal Mehta Versus State of Gujarat

Decided On August 29, 2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Hasmukh

INTRODUCTION-

The applicant accused has requested release on anticipatory bail through this application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in the event of his arrest in connection with offences punishable under Sections 387, 120(B), 34, 389, and 201 of the Penal Code, 1860,

FACTS OF THE CASE

The applicant claims that the current applicant has been wrongfully implicated in the alleged crime. Even if the accusations made in the FIR are taken at face value, the present applicant’s only role is that of a platform and contact facilitator for one Rameshbhai Joshi. As a result, the only role assigned to the applicant is that of a mediator, and the present applicant is only accused based on the conversation. Furthermore, at the time the complaint was filed, his statement was recorded, but no accusations were made against him; it was only later that the present applicant was brought into the picture. He also said that the allegations are of a nature that warrants a custodial interview at this time. Additionally, the applicant is accessible during the investigation and won’t resist justice. He added that the coordinate Bench of the Court considers the accused to have played a similar role, so he has asked to grant the current application on the grounds of parity.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

On behalf of the respondent, the Public Prosecutor testified that anticipatory bail should not be granted due to the seriousness and nature of the crime. Additionally, he claims that the applicant is actively involved in the crime, that he was in contact with the applicant, and that the applicant actively participated in the formation of the conspiracy. As a result, he claims that custodial questioning of the applicant for a thorough investigation is necessary, and he has asked that the current application be dismissed.

It is well-established that among other circumstances, the factors to be taken into account when deciding whether to grant bail are

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable basis to believe that the accused had committed the crime;

(ii) the nature and seriousness of the accusation;

(iii) the severity of the punishment in the event of a conviction;

(iv) the risk that the accused will flee or turn against them if granted bail; and (v) character, behaviour, means, and position Despite the fact that a thorough investigation of the evidence and thorough justifications regarding the grant of bail

This would be sufficient to hold the defendant in judicial custody and consider the prosecution’s request for a police remand. It is made clear that the applicant, even if remanded to police custody, shall be released right away after the allotted time has passed, subject to the other terms of this anticipatory bail order.

Written by- Steffi Desousa

5 Sep

Three significant eyewitnesses became hostile in front of the Sessions Court, and during cross-examination, they did not support the prosecution’s case Gujarat High Court considers the matter.

TITLE – Vishal Versus State of Gujarat

Decided On-: August 28, 2023

9822 of 2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. J.Vora

INTRODUCTION-

The applicant accused no. 3 is seeking regular bail in connection with the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 506(2), and 114 of the IPC and Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act through this successive bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

FACTS OF THE CASE

According to the prosecution’s case, the incident happened on January 21, 2021, at the location noted in the charge-sheet papers. The prosecution’s case is that the primary accused and the present applicant came to the scene of the crime with a common intention and a deadly weapon and assaulted the deceased, who later died from his wounds, out of rivalry and resentment. Regarding the role of the current applicant, it is alleged that he grabbed hold of the deceased to aid the other co-accused in carrying out their shared purpose. The case was handed over to the Sessions Court following the filing of the charge-sheet. Nine of the 32 witnesses who appeared before the Sessions Court had their questions answered.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The applicant’s knowledgeable attorney has argued that there has been no recovery or discovery at the applicant’s request in this case, and that the prosecution’s case has not been supported by eye witnesses. As a result, he might be granted a concession and be expanded on bail with the proper terms and conditions.

However, Ms. Asmita Patel, a knowledgeable APP for the respondent-State, disagreed, stating that there was insufficient evidence to support the exercise of judicial discretion in favour of the applicant in this case because the offence was grave in nature.

Following the hearing of knowledgeable solicitors who represented the parties and a review of the documentation, it appears that the applicant—original accused no. 3—was detained on January 23, 2021, for the alleged offence. In terms of his function, he caught hold of the deceased at the appropriate moment. Three significant eyewitnesses became hostile in front of the Sessions Court, and during cross-examination, they did not support the prosecution’s case. In these circumstances, this Court believes that, without getting into the merits of the case, the matter merits consideration given the role assigned to the current applicant and the evidence supporting the charge.

Written by- Steffi Desousa

5 Sep

There is no nexus between the present complainant, and the present accused charged under 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506(2), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code Bail granted Gujarat High Court

TITLE – Alambhai Nurabhai Malek Versus State of Gujarat

Decided On-: August 28, 2023

7145 of 2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Hasmukh

INTRODUCTION-

The applicant-accused has requested anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506(2), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code through the current application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The applicant claims that the current applicant is unrelated to the civil nature of the offence and has even filed a civil lawsuit against Ajaybhai Shridhar. On January 15, 2023, even one complaint was made to the Ahmedabad City Commissioner of Police. The investigation now includes the current applicant, whose statement was also recorded; as a result, the current complaint has been filed. Because of the nature of the allegations, a custodial interrogation is not required at this time. The alleged sale of contract does not include the current applicant as a party. He further asserts that the applicant will remain reachable throughout the investigation and trial as well as not run from justice.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

On behalf of the respondent, the Public Prosecutor testified that anticipatory bail should not be granted due to the seriousness and nature of the crime. Expert lawyer Mr. Bomi H. Sethna opposed the application and claimed that the current applicant had entered into transactions with many people and had defrauded the applicant of his money. The applicant, who is a partner of one Ajaybhai, executed a sale agreement with the intent to defraud the parties and stole their money. It is clear from the accused’s actions that they were involved prima facie and that they had the intention of cheating. Due to the fact that both accused parties participated in the offence, a request was made to the Commissioner Police after investigation complaint came out, hence custodial interrogation is required and he requested to dismiss the present application. Without going into great detail about the evidence at this point, the court was inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant after listening to the learned solicitors for the parties, reading the material that has been filed, and considering the facts of the case, the nature of the allegations, the seriousness of the offences, and the role attributed to the accused.

Written by- Steffi Desousa