BHARWAD SANTOSHBHAI SONDABHAI (APPELLANT) Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. (RESPONDENT)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2495 OF 2023
(2JB, HIMA KOHLI and RAJESH BINDAL JJ.)

Facts: The present appeal by way of special leave has been filed by the complainant who is aggrieved by the order dated 18th February, 2022, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in a Criminal Miscellaneous Application filed by the respondent No.2 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, granting him regular bail for the offence under Sections 302 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 18604 read with Section 30 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

Issue: Whether bail can be granted by the court in a murder case on the basis of settlement between parties?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:

Learned counsel for the appellant states that the respondent No.2 had approached the trial Court for seeking regular bail twice. The first application for bail was rejected vide order dated 25th November, 2021. Even on the second occasion, the trial Court declined to grant any relief to the respondent No.2, keeping in mind the fact that he was facing a charge under Section 302 of the IPC and that the witnesses had identified him during the test identification parade. Learned counsel for the appellant has expressed an apprehension that if the respondent No.2 remains on bail, there is every likelihood of his tampering with the evidence in the instant case and irrespective of the chargesheet having been filed, he can still indulge in such an activity.

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposes the present appeal and states the subsequent FIR registered against his client was in the course of his duty as a Security Officer attached to his employer who has some running dispute with his brother, in which he too got embroiled. This can hardly be a ground to explain registration of another FIR against the respondent No.2 when he was on bail in the FIR, subject matter of the present petition.

Held: The court allowed the present appeal and quashed and set aside the impugned order while holding that, “respondent No.2 was not entitled to any relief in the instant case. Respondent No.2 had remained in custody for barely six months before he was released on bail in respect of a serious offence under Section 302 of the IPC. His antecedents also indicate his propensity towards committing crime.”

The court, expressing shock, observed that, “Strangely enough one of the considerations that has weighed with the learned Single Judge includes the fact that the respondent No. 2 has filed a settlement arrived at with the original complainant and the affidavit of the original complainant confirmed the said settlement, that too in respect of an offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Another consideration that has been taken into consideration by the High Court is the fact that there were no adverse antecedents of the respondent No.2. To top it all, learned Additional Public Prosecutor made a submission before the High Court that the State was unable to bring on record any special circumstances against the respondent No.2.