In a recent ruling by the Gujarat High Court, anticipatory bail was granted in connection with FIR No.11202026230900 of 2023 at Jam Jodhpur Police Station. The decision signifies a step towards justice and fairness in the legal system, ensuring the rights of the individuals involved. This judgment sets a precedent in cases related to the Scheduled Castes and the Prevention of Atrocity Act, emphasizing the importance of upholding the rule of law.
Facts
- The applicant accused has filed an appeal for release on anticipatory bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act.
- The appeal is in connection with FIR No.11202026230900 of 2023 at Jam Jodhpur Police Station, Jamnagar.
- The offenses mentioned in the FIR are punishable under Sections 392, 323, 504, 506(2), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 3(2) V, 3(1)(r), and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act.
- Mr. Jay Mehta, the learned APP representing the State, has waived the service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.
Arguments
- The learned APP submits that the complainant has been served but has chosen not to appear in the matter.
- Learned APP has served the report of the police authority to the complainant, which is taken on record.
- Despite being served, the complainant has chosen not to appear.
- Learned advocate for the applicant has requested for anticipatory bail, citing the nature of allegations and the role attributed to the applicant.
- After considering the facts, nature of allegations, and role attributed to the accused, along with the police report submitted by the learned APP, the court finds no conclusive material against the present applicant.
- Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail based on the nature and gravity of the offence.
Analysis
- The mobile phone in question was sent to the FSL for analysis.
- No evidence linking the present applicant to the alleged offense was found.
- The complainant was asked to provide a backup of the alleged video but failed to do so.
- The Court considered the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported at [2011] 1 SCC 694.
- The Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, reported at (1980) 2 SCC 565.
- As a result, the present application was allowed by the Court.
Decision
- The applicant has been granted anticipatory bail without detailed discussion of the evidence.
- Conditions for the bail include a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the same amount.
- Applicant must cooperate with the investigation, be available for interrogation, and present at the Police Station on a specified date and time.
- Applicant must not influence any person related to the case, obstruct the investigation, or tamper with evidence.
- Applicant must provide their address, not change residence, and not leave India without court permission.
- The Trial Court should not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court during the bail grant.
Case Title: AJAY JAMANBHAI SOJITRA (PATEL) Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/CR.A/990/2024
