Allowed

Solanki Vishal Sureshbhai v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC27 Nov 2018CR.A/1336/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 1336 of 2018, set aside the lower court's order denying anticipatory bail. The Court held that the FIR lacked mandatory averments required by the SC&ST Act, making prima facie charges doubtful. Relying on Subhash Kashinath Mahajan, the Court granted anticipation bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order denying anticipatory bail quashed; appellant admitted to bail on bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.

Solanki Vishal Sureshbhai Vs State of Gujarat — Anticipatory Bail | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

R/CR.A/1336/2018 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1336 of 2018

¶4

==========================================================

¶5

SOLANKI VISHAL SURESHBHAI

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶8

==========================================================

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MR SADIK A ANSARI(5388) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED(4) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2 MR.PRANAV TRIVEDI, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

¶11

==========================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI

¶13

Date : 27/11/2018

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

1.Order dated 10th August, 2018 rendered by Special
Judge (Atrocity), City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in
Criminal Misc. Application No.5259 of 2018 denying
the anticipatory bail to the appellant under the
provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for
short ‘the SC&ST Act’) for the offences punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 323, 294(b), 452, 507 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) as also Sections
3(1)(r)(z), 3(2)(5A) of the SC&ST Act in connection
with the F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-139 of 2018
registered with Naroda Police Station, Ahmedabad is
sought to be assailed in this appeal preferred under
the provisions of the SC&ST Act.

¶16

2.While the learned counsel for the appellant and
the learned APP has made oral submissions, the

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

R/CR.A/1336/2018 ORDER

¶19

respondent No.2 who is an advocate practicing in the
lower Court has merely tendered objections to the
grant of anticipatory bail during the course of
hearing without orally addressing this Court.

¶20

3.Having considered the rival contentions, it
transpires that the mandatory averments as indicated
in Section 3 of SC&ST Act that the accused is not the
member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe are
lacking from the F.I.R.; in similar circumstances in
Gorige Pentaiah V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
- 2008 (12) SCC 531 the F.I.R. devoid of such
averments itself was quashed. Thus, prima-facie
sustainability of charge against the appellant under
the provisions of the SC&ST Act is doubtful.

¶21

4.So far as the averments on merits are concerned,
it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the
appellant that at different intervals, the
complainant has been adding accused persons at will
and the appellant is the person who has been
subsequently added in the said manner as an accused
person though not named initially in the F.I.R.

¶22

5.The dispute by the complainant is raised against
the members of the society and the provisions other
than Atrocities Act are those referred to here-in-
above. Commission of an offence is not sufficient to
deny a liberty to a person. Be it noted that; at the
stage of trial/even during the trial, the accused is
required to be presumed as innocent. The Court cannot
be oblivious of the fact that he is yet to be tried

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

R/CR.A/1336/2018 ORDER

¶25

and his criminal liability is yet to be fixed. The
Court also must be conscious of the fact that denial
of bail may not result into pretrial conviction of
the accused. The court below failed to consider the
above referred well settled principles of law while
considering the bail or anticipatory bail. Learned
APP is not able to point out as to how the ends of
justice would be served by keeping the appellant in
jail during trial.

¶26

6.As per ratio laid down in Subhash Kashinath
Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2018 SC 1498],
it is settled legal position that unless the case on
merits under the provisions of the SC&ST Act is
prima-facie made out, or if the allegations are
prima-facie found to be motivated or false, exclusion
of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as
contemplated by recent amendment would not apply. In
so far as present case is concerned, it arose prior
to the amendment and therefore, amendment would not
have any adverse effect on the rights of the
appellant to seek anticipatory bail under Section 438
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, as
indicated above the necessary averments that the
appellant is not the member of the Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribe as contemplated in Section 3 of
the SC&ST Act are lacking from the F.I.R. and thus
prima-facie the allegations against the appellant
under the SC&ST Act are not likely to be sustained.

¶27

7.For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned
order dated 10.08.2018 passed by learned Special

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

R/CR.A/1336/2018 ORDER

¶30

Judge (Atrocity), City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad is
quashed and set aside. The appellant is ordered to be
admitted to bail in anticipation of his arrest in
connection with the F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-139 of
2018 registered with Naroda Police Station, Ahmedabad
on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount
on following conditions :-

¶31

[a] shall cooperate with the investigation and make
himself available for interrogation whenever
required;

¶32

[b] shall remain present at concerned Police Station
on 01.12.2018 between 11.00 am to 2.00 pm;

¶33

[c] shall not hamper the investigation in any manner
nor shall directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any witness so as to dissuade
them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to
any Police Officer;

¶34

[d] shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish
the address to the Investigating Officer and the
Court concerned and shall intimate the change of
residence if made by accused during the pendency of
the case.

¶35

[e] shall not leave India without the permission of
the Court and, if is holding a Passport, shall
surrender the same before the trial Court
immediately.

¶36

[f] despite this order, it would be open for the

¶37

Page 4 of 5

¶38

R/CR.A/1336/2018 ORDER

¶39

Investigating Agency to apply to the competent
Magistrate, for police remand of the appellant. The
appellant shall remain present before the learned
Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such
application and on all subsequent occasions, as may
be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be
sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial
custody for the purpose of entertaining application
of the prosecution for police remand. This is,
however, without prejudice to the right of the
accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if
ultimately granted, and the power of the learned
Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance
with law. It is clarified that the appellant, even
if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion
of such period of police remand, shall be set free
immediately, subject to other conditions of this
anticipatory bail order.

¶40

8. At the trial, the trial court shall not be
influenced by the prima facie observations made by
this Court while enlarging the appellant on bail.

¶41

9. Direct service is permitted.

¶42

(G.R.UDHWANI, J)

¶43

RAVI PATEL

¶44

Page 5 of 5

Solanki Vishal Sureshbhai v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Solanki Vishal Sureshbhai v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hemantbhai Jekishandas Presswala Vs State of Gujarat

Manishgiri Shantigiri Goswami Vs State of Gujarat

Jai Prakash Harkishandas Lalwani Vs Rajai Pushpaben @ Vanitaben Mohanlal

Rahevar Divyarajsinh Harsidhsinh Vs State of Gujarat

Shahazadi W/O Zuberkhan Sardar Mahmad E/O Dilavarkhan Pathan Vs State of Gujarat

Zuberkhan Sardarmahmad Baluch Vs State of Gujarat