R/CR.MA/6576/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/06/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 6576 of 2025 ========================================================== JAYENDRASINH ANOPSINH PADHIYAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR CHIRAYU A MEHTA(3256) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE(3267) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR HARDIK DAVE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR WITH MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 13/06/2025 ORAL ORDER [1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State and Mr. Dave waives Rule for the Complainant. [2.0] The present successive bail application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11205032210048 of 2021 registered with Mundra Police Station, Dist. Kachchh, for the offence under Sections 302, 343, 330, 331, 326, 212, 201, 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. [3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. Investigation is over and chargesheet has been filed. Earlier he had filed bail application which was withdrawn on the ground of delay in trial. Similarly situated co-accused persons are released by the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the delay in trial in Criminal Appeal No.4197/2024 The applicant has never taken undue advantage during the custody throughout has remained in custody. All witnesses have been examined and trial is at the stage of arguments of the accused persons. Though specific direction was R/CR.MA/6576/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/06/2025 passed by this Court, at that time, liberty was reserved in favour of the applicant as submissions made by the prosecution that 10-12 witnesses are left out and direction was passed to expedite the trial within two months on day to day basis on 16.01.2025. Since six months have been passed by, no progress in trial is there. He has also submitted that, there is no possibility to tamper the evidence. He has also submitted that, the applicant was Police Inspector and now he is suspended. Considering the same, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. [4.0] Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent- State has opposed the present application and submitted that, trial is at the verge of completion and therefore, question does not arise to consider the bail application. There is strong possiblity to free away from justice and if the applicant is released on bail, it gives wrong signal to the wrong doers and in connivance with the other co-accused, the applicant accused is able to derail the litigation. Considering the same, he prays not to allow application. [5.0] At the outset, it is worth to mention that present is a successive bail application and earlier similarly situated co-accused persons are considered by this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court. The applicant is in custody since 20.01.2021. Trial is at the stage of completion and all witnesses are examined and now nothing is required to be recovered or discovered from the accused. Therefore, question does not arise to tamper the evidence. It is true that present is a successive bail application and no change in the circumstances, except delay in trial. This is not a case where delay is caused due to non-cooperation on the part of the accused. The applicant has throughout cooperated in the trial and similarly situated co-accused are enlarged on bail and therefore, on the ground of parity also, application deserves consideration. Though appreciation of evidence is not permissible, without discussing further on merit, application deserves consideration. Further, it is also required to be noted that in earlier bail application, specific direction was passed to conduct the trial on day to day basis and R/CR.MA/6576/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/06/2025 complete it within two months, however, the trial is not completed and once again, the applicant has approached this court. While pendency of this application, time was extended by the learned trial Court but during the course of hearing, it was submitted that due to transfer application filed by the co-accused, trial could not be proceeded though the matter was kept for recording of statement. Considering the said facts, as the trial Court is seized with the matter in view of Section 391 of BNSS, as accused is under- trial prisoner and even as per the mandatory provisions of Section 391, learned Sessions Judge was duty bound to conclude the trial on day to day basis in light of the directions of this Court as well as mandatory provisions of law. Even though learned Sessions Judge failed to comply with the said direction. Considering the facts of the case and development in the matter, the applicant accused is not at fault and why citizen – accused should suffer due to inaction on the part of the Court. Due to such insensitive approach and considering the persona liberty and right of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, application deserves consideration. At this stage, learned counsel for the complainant has requested to stay the execution and implementation of the present order, which reveals that the complainant is not interested to expedite the trial and to see that the applicant is kept behind bar. Considering the manner in which he has made a request to stay the bail order, is not acceded to. [6.0] While granting bail, the Court has to consider the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and the following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses and threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the R/CR.MA/6576/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/06/2025 accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations are required to be considered. [7.0] This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012]1 SCC 40 as well as in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1978)1 SCC 240. Obviously, the conclusion of trial will take time and keeping the accused behind the bars is nothing but amounts to pre-trial conviction and therefore, considering the celebrated principle of bail jurisprudence is that “bail is a rule and jail is exception” as well as the concept of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, present application deserves consideration. [8.0] In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing further on merit, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11205032210048 of 2021 registered with Mundra Police Station, Dist. Kachchh on executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) with two local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall; (a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; (b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution & shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and shall not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police; (c) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week; R/CR.MA/6576/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/06/2025 (d) not to leave State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Trial Court concerned; (e) mark presence before the concerned trial court on each and every occasion till the trial is concluded; (f) furnish the Aadhar card, email ID/present address of his residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence/contact number without prior permission of Trial Court; (g) if the applicant is found to be indulged in any illegal activities in future, the trial Court concerned will be free to issue warrant and cancel the bail granted to the applicant. [9.0] The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. [10.0] Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law. [11.0] At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. [12.0] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) SUCHIT Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 13/06/2025 18:09:45