Unveiling the intricacies of the legal system, the Gujarat High Court recently deliberated on bail consideration in the Vicky vs. State of Gujarat case. This landmark judgement addresses crucial points regarding the core requirements for granting or rejecting bail. Dive into the complexities of this case to understand the nuances of the law and the implications on the accused. #LegalCase #BailConsideration #HighCourt
Facts
- Petitioner is a journalist who exposed the sand mafia scam
- Petitioner’s advocate argues that bail was granted lightly without proper discussion
- Advocate argues that core requirements for granting or rejecting bail were not discussed
Arguments
- The complainant suffered grave hurt which was not noticed by the learned Sessions Court during the bail hearing.
- The snatching of the golden chain from the complainant was also not considered by the learned Sessions Court when bail was granted to the accused.
- Photographs showing the injuries sustained by the complainant were not taken into account by the learned Sessions Judge.
- The complainant recorded a video of the incident where the driver of the vehicle used foul language and threatened the complainant on behalf of Mr. Vicky.
- Mr. Vicky arrived with six or seven persons during the incident but this was not adequately considered during the bail hearing.
- The complainant’s car, which was also ransacked during the incident, was overlooked by the Sessions Court when granting bail to the accused.
- The bail was granted in a seemingly casual manner by the learned Sessions Court, without proper consideration of the severity of the incident.
- The learned Sessions Judge granted regular bail to the accused based on the nature of the injury caused, which was deemed not grievous.
- The complainant did not identify any of the accused as the one who snatched the golden chain from his neck in the Test Identification Parade.
- The incident stemmed from a reckless driving incident involving a dumper, escalating when the complainant attempted to rebuke the driver and film the situation.
- The question of whether the accused intended to commit dacoity is to be determined during the trial.
- Prosecution did not apply for additional charges such as Section-397 or Section-326 of the Indian Penal Code.
- The Panchnama of the Test Identification Parade revealed the presence of the accused with sticks and sickles, engaging in physical violence against the complainant.
- The learned Sessions Judge overlooked the aspect of the accused using foul language and physically assaulting the complainant, which was stated in the complaint.
- It is argued that if the bail consideration was not appropriately assessed, the complainant has the right to apply for bail cancellation.
Analysis
- Trial of the present case expected to take a long time to be completed.
- No use in keeping the present applicants/accused in further jail as investigation is almost over.
- Complainant failed to identify the person who snatched the golden chain during T.I. parade, raising suspicion about the theft.
- Applicants/accused have given assurance to abide by all conditions if granted bail.
- Applicants are permanent residents with family responsibilities, making them eligible for bail with strict conditions.
- No super winning circumstance presented by the complainant-journalist to interfere with the bail order.
- Prayer for cancellation of bail requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances
- Cancellation of bail should not be done mechanically, but after considering supervening circumstances
- Citing the judgments in Daulat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349, Kashmira Singh v. Duman Singh (1996) 4 SCC 693 and X v. State of Telangana (2018) 16 SCC 511
- Offence alleged against the accused is under Section 394 of IPC involving unlawful assembly and threats of dire consequences
- No reason found to interfere with the bail granted
- Referring to recent observations in Kekhriesatuo Tep and others Vs. National Investigating Agency (2023) 6 SCC 58 on personal liberty of the accused
- Citing the judgment in Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak (2023) INSC 7613, following the principles laid down in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, Kashmira Singh v. Duman Singh, and X v. State of Telangana
- There is no offence under Section 326 as alleged in the FIR.
- The allegations do not establish the essential elements of the offence under Section 326.
- The facts and evidence presented do not meet the criteria for the offence under Section 326.
Decision
- Present petition failed and dismissed at the admission stage.
- The learned Sessions Judge granted bail based on the circumstances.
Case Title: KARUNESH KHUMANDAS PANCHAMVEDI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCR.A/5652/2024
