In a noteworthy development, the Gujarat High Court has delivered a crucial judgment in the case of Transit Anticipatory Bail for Applicants vs. State. The applicants, seeking temporary protection from arrest in connection with FIR No. 0100 of 2024 at Girwai Police Station, District Gwalior, have been granted relief for 7 days. The FIR raised allegations under sections 376-D, 354(C), 377, 328, and 384 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants, who argue malice and foul play. This ruling sets a precedent in ensuring fair legal procedures. Stay updated on the latest legal happenings! #LegalJustice #GujaratHighCourt #TransitAnticipatoryBail
Facts
- The applicants have approached the court seeking transit anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 0100 of 2024.
- The FIR was registered at Girwai Police Station, District Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh for various offences under sections 376-D, 354(C), 377, 328, and 384 of the Indian Penal Code.
- The applicants pray for their release on transit anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Arguments
- The applicants have no involvement in the alleged offence and are being targeted due to their status as witnesses in another case against the original complainant.
- The FIR was lodged almost a year after the incident took place, raising concerns about its timing and intent.
- Inclusion of the applicant’s names in the FIR is seen as an act of malice and an attempt to obstruct justice.
- The applicants are being falsely implicated to coerce them to step back as witnesses in a separate criminal case.
- Allegations against the applicants are deemed unfounded and without merit based on the submissions made by their advocate.
- The FIR in question was actually lodged by one of the present applicants against three other accused individuals.
- Applicants are residents of Ahmedabad City facing FIR at Girwai Police Station, District- Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh
- Applicants express apprehension as they are arraigned as original accused in the FIR
- Territorial jurisdiction should not be the sole reason for rejecting limited/transitory anticipatory bail plea
- Rejection based solely on territorial jurisdiction may lead to miscarriage of justice and increase adversity for the accused
- Learned APP Mr. H.K. Patel representing the respondent-State objects to the submissions and urges the Court to dismiss the application
- Court has heard the learned advocate for the applicants
Decision
- The applicants are granted protection from arrest for 7 days in connection with FIR No. 0100 of 2024 at Girwai Police Station, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh.
- The FIR includes charges under sections 376-D, 354(C), 377, 328, and 384 of the Indian Penal Code.
- Applicants are advised to seek anticipatory bail from the appropriate court within the specified timeframe.
- Failure to apply for anticipatory bail will result in automatic cancellation of the transit bail after 7 days.
Case Title: GULWANI JITENDRA MULCHANDBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/CR.MA/9366/2024
