Dhaval Gordhanbhai Sarola vs State Of Gujarat & Anr

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned advocate Mr.Sandeep Kapadia for learned advocate Mr.S.S. Soni appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Jay A. Mehta appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for enlarging the applicant on successive regular bail in connection with FIR C.R. No. I-125 of 2016, registered with Mahila Police Station, District: Rajkot, for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506(2) of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, more particularly, the applicant having been arrested upon the learned Sessions Court having issued a non-bailable warrant as the applicant had not attended the trial regularly from 2022 onwards.

Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on successive regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge-sheet is filed no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of successive regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

Having regard to the fact that the applicant has prayed for grant of successive regular bail, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers.

7.1. It would appear in this regard that the applicant, having been arraigned as an accused in the FIR registered in the year 2016, had been enlarged on bail by the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, and whereas it is alleged that the applicant had not remained present after his release by the learned Co-ordinate Bench and whereas the learned Sessions Judge having issued a non-bailable warrant, the applicant had been arrested by the police officials on the 26th January, 2024 and is in custody since then.

7.2. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate for the respective parties and having perused the documents annexed with the petition, it would prima facie appear to this Court that the applicant may be suffering from various ailments, more particularly Alcoholic Hepatitis, etc., and whereas it also appears that the applicant does not have much knowledge about the legal procedure, which has led to the applicant not attending the trial;

7.3. This Court also considered the fact that the applicant is in custody since last around 1 year and 5 months on account of the not attending the trial, more particularly, upon the non-bailable warrant being issued, and whereas he had been released on successive regular bail in the substantive offence.

7.4. This Court has also considered the submissions of the learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant would now onward diligently remain present before the learned Sessions Court at every occasion, and whereas the absence would be with appropriate for appropriate reasons with an appropriate application for exemption.

7.5. This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on successive regular bail.

Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. registered as C.R. No. I-125 of 2016, registered with Mahila Police Station, District: Rajkot, on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Court concerned;

[e] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior intimation to the I.O.;

[f] mark presence before concerned police station once in a month for a period of six months;

[g] shall ensure that he would attend trial regularly, failing which, the learned Sessions Court would be at liberty to take appropriate steps;

The Authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Court concerned will be free to take appropriate action in the matter.

Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law.

At the stage of trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations of this Court which are of preliminary nature made at this stage, only for the purpose of considering the application of the applicant for being released on successive regular bail.

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.