AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nikhil S. Kariel, J
Heard learned Advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli for learned Advocate Mr. Nayankumar Shukla on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Asmita Patel for the respondent-State.
Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.
The present applicant who has been arraigned as an accused has preferred this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11211009250013 of 2025 registered with Chotila Police Station, Surendranagar for offences punishable under Sections Sections 103(1), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 351(3) and 352 of the Bhatriya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act after filing of the charge-sheet more particularly the application preferred by the applicants having been rejected by the learned Trial Court. 382, 401, 447, 448, 452, 456, 458, 34 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned Advocate Mr. Dagli would submit that the role attributed to the present applicant as revealed from the FIR and also from the charge-sheet papers is of having caught hold of the deceased, and whereas the actual assault had been by other persons. Learned Advocate would submit that similar allegations had been levelled against two other accused namely Shantuben and Thomanbhai and whereas learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 10.06.2025 and 14.08.2025 in Criminal Misc. Applications No. 8223 of 2025 and 13990 of 2025 respectively has been pleased to release the said accused on regular bail. Learned Advocate would submit that under such circumstances since there is no difference between the role attributed this Court may consider the present application on the ground of parity.
The present application has been vehemently opposed by learned APP Ms. Patel on behalf of respondent- State who would submit that very serious allegations have been levelled in the FIR against all the accused and whereas under such circumstances this Court may not consider the application of the present applicant. To a pointed query, learned APP Ms. Patel could not point out any difference in the role attributed to Shantuben and Thovanbhai and as against the present applicant.
This Court has heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the FIR as well as passed by learned Session Court as well as affidavit filed by the investigating officer before the learned Trial Court.
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.
This Court has also considered the following aspects:
(i) The role attributed against the present applicant being of having caught hold of the deceased while the other accused had assaulted.
(ii) The fact of accused having similar role, i.e or having caught hold of the deceased having been released by learned Co-ordinate Bench, as noted hereinabove.
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 regular bail.
Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11211009250013 of 2025 registered with Chotila Police Station, Surendranagar for offences punishable under Sections Sections 103(1), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 351(3) and 352 of the Bhatriya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act on executing a bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five 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] Mark his presence in the concerned Police Station once in a month for a period of six months between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
[f] 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 residential address without prior permission of the Sessions Court;
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 Judge concerned will be free to take appropriate action in the matter.
12 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.
13 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 regular bail.
The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.