In a significant legal development, the Gujarat High Court has rendered a judgment in the case of State of Gujarat v. [Applicant’s Name], granting regular bail in connection with FIR I-C.R.No.11206074240135 of 2024. This landmark decision delves into key aspects of bail under the Indian Penal Code, setting a precedent for future cases. The ruling reflects a meticulous analysis of the circumstances surrounding the allegations, emphasizing the principles of justice and fairness.
Facts
- The Additional Public Prosecutor waived service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent- State of Gujarat.
- The present application is filed for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- The FIR in question is I-C.R.No.11206074240135 of 2024 registered with Vijapur Police Station, District: Mehsana.
- The offences mentioned in the FIR include Sections 306, 384, 114, 506(2), and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Sections 33, 40, and 42 of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act.
Arguments
- The respondent-State has opposed the grant of regular bail based on the nature and gravity of the offence.
- The name of the applicant is not mentioned in the alleged suicide note as per the statement from the learned APP.
- The arguments presented by both sides have been heard by the court.
- The FIR is described as sham and bogus, with allegations of it being an abuse of the process of law.
- There are no allegations or attribution of abetment, provocation, or instigation to commit suicide in the FIR, hence the essential ingredients of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted.
Analysis
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered three main factors in making decisions on the case
- These factors include prima facie case, the availability of the applicant during trial, and the possibility of tampering with witnesses by the accused
- The investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been submitted, eliminating the risk of tampering with evidence
- The applicant is not expected to flee, as mentioned by the applicant’s advocate
- The offence in question is under Section 306 of the IPC
- The suicide note does not mention the name of the applicant
- The role attributed to the applicant is pressuring the deceased to return borrowed money
- The law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 is considered.
- Given the nature of allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, discretion is required to be exercised in favor of the applicant.
- The court is of the opinion that the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail.
Decision
- The Sessions Judge has the authority to issue a warrant or take action if any conditions are breached
- The Trial Court should not be influenced by preliminary observations made by the higher court while granting bail
- The bail bond should be executed before the Trial Court having jurisdiction
- The applicant has been in custody since 05.03.2024
- The court permits direct service
- The lower court can modify or delete any of the conditions mentioned
- The applicant is granted bail in connection with specific offences upon satisfying conditions and executing a bond
- The conditions include not misusing liberty, not acting against prosecution’s interest, surrendering passport, not leaving Gujarat without permission, marking presence at the Police Station regularly, providing address and not changing it without permission
- The applicant will only be released if not required in connection with any other offence
Case Title: RENUSINH @ DIPARAM DINESHSINH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/CR.MA/9546/2024
