In a recent legal development, the Gujarat High Court has granted anticipatory bail in the Valsad FIR case. The Court’s decision comes after careful consideration of the facts and arguments presented by both parties. This significant judgment showcases the court’s commitment to upholding justice while ensuring fairness for all involved in the case. Stay tuned for more insights into this landmark legal ruling.
Facts
- The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- The prayer in the petition is for anticipatory bail in connection with FIR C.R.No.11200010240432 of 2024 at Valsad Town Police Station.
- The petitioner seeks release on anticipatory bail to avoid arrest.
- The FIR is registered in Valsad District.
- The application for anticipatory bail is being considered by the court.
Arguments
- Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed anticipatory bail due to the nature and gravity of the offence.
- The court, after hearing both parties and analyzing the case record, decides to exercise discretion in favor of the petitioner.
- Key aspects considered include the involvement of Liquor Muddamal in the offence and the fact that the offences are triable by a Magisterial Court.
- The delay in trial commencement and conclusion is noted, making refusal of bail equivalent to pre-trial conviction, which is against the law.
- The petitioner is willing to comply with any conditions set by the Court.
Analysis
- The court must exercise discretion judiciously and strictly adhere to basic principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
- Factors to consider for bail application include prima facie evidence of the accused committing the offense, nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of potential punishment, risk of accused fleeing, character and behavior of the accused, likelihood of repeated offenses, potential influence on witnesses, and risk to justice if bail is granted.
- While granting bail, detailed examination and reasoning on the evidence should be avoided to prevent prejudice to the accused.
- The Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 665.
- The Court considered the law laid down in the case of Sushila Agarwal v/s. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2020) 5 SCC 1].
- The Apex Court’s decision in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. was taken into consideration while exercising discretion in favor of the petitioner.
Decision
- The Court has granted bail to the petitioner in case of arrest pursuant to FIR C.R.No.11200010240432 of 2024 registered at Valsad Town Police Station, District – Valsad.
- The bail is subject to conditions including a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of the same amount.
- The petitioner must cooperate with the investigation and be available for interrogation when required.
- Specific dates and times have been set for the petitioner to be present at the concerned Police Station.
- The petitioner must not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.
- It is mandatory for the petitioner to provide and maintain their address with the investigating officer and court till the case’s conclusion.
- Restrictions on travel include not leaving India without court permission and depositing the passport if held within a week.
- Additionally, the petitioner is restricted from entering specific districts for a year except for court-related matters.
- Any breach of these conditions empowers the Judge to take suitable action.
Case Title: JAISWAL DEEPAK BHARATBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/CR.MA/7658/2024
