The Gujarat High Court has granted anticipatory bail in the case involving Virendrasinh @ Mummo Ajitsinh Jadeja. The judgment, which considered the nature and gravity of the offenses under Sections 323, 324, 326, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, sets a precedent for similar cases in the future. This landmark decision reflects the court’s adherence to established legal principles and considerations of justice. Stay tuned for more insights on this significant legal development.
Facts
- The present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is for anticipatory bail by the accused applicants
- The FIR under consideration is C.R.No.I–11211056240292 of 2024 at Surendranagar City B Division Police Station
- The accused applicants are seeking anticipatory bail for offenses under Sections 323, 324, 326, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act
- Learned APP, Mr. H.K.Patel waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State
Arguments
- Advocate Mr. Devansh Kakkad, who appears for the original complainant, states that the matter is settled between the parties.
- Advocate Mr. Zala for the applicants argues that given the nature of the allegations, custodial interrogation at this stage is unnecessary.
- The applicants have committed to remaining available during the investigation, trial, and will not evade justice.
- Nature and gravity of the offence was considered by Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. H.K.Patel in opposing anticipatory bail.
- Inclination to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants based on the facts, allegations, and role attributed to the accused.
- Applicants’ willingness to abide by conditions, including those related to the Investigating Agency’s powers for remand.
- Consideration of settlement between parties and the fact that the assault was committed by Virendrasinh @ Mummo Ajitsinh Jadeja on the complainant.
- Application of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab in granting anticipatory bail.
- Order for release on anticipatory bail in connection with FIR C.R.No. I–11211056240292 of 2024 with specified conditions related to cooperation, availability for interrogation, non-inducement, non-obstruction of investigation, furnishing addresses, not leaving India without permission, submission of passports, and the possibility for Investigating Officer to file for remand.
Decision
- Accused must remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing and all subsequent occasions as directed.
- Accused has the right to seek stay against an order of remand if granted.
- Magistrate has the power to consider a request for stay in accordance with the law.
- Upon completion of police remand, accused shall be set free immediately.
- Trial court should not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
- The rule is made absolute to the specified extent.
- Direct service is permitted.
- Accused will be treated in judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining the prosecution’s application for police remand.
Case Title: KAILASHBA AJITISINH JADEJA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/CR.MA/9792/2024
