Gujarat High Court
Hansaben Valjibhai Dhacha vs State Of Gujarat on 16 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2385/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO. 2385 of 2024
==========================================================
HANSABEN VALJIBHAI DHACHA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PREMAL S RACHH(3297) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED THRU CONCERNED POLICE STATION for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6,7,8
MR HK PATEL, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 16/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
Admit. Learned APP waives service of notice of admission for the respondent-State. Though notice is served to respondent Nos.2 to 8, they remained absent.
1. By way of present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Atrocity Act"), the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar below Exhibit 1, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has granted regular bail to the respondent - original accused.
2. Facts of the case are that the applicant herein is the original complainant, and respondents No. 2 to 8 are the original accused persons in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11202038240533/2024 registered with Meghpar Padana Police Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:29:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2385/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined Station, Jamnagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 352, and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(v-a) Atrocity Act, and Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act. It is stated in the complaint that on 15.07.2024 at around 9:00 PM, while the applicant was at her residence, respondents No. 2 and 3 forcefully entered her house and started abusing the husband of the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 called the other accused persons, who arrived at the complainant's house armed with deadly weapons such as an iron pipe and wooden log. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 physically assaulted the complainant by kicking and punching her, and respondent No. 5 grabbed the collar of the complainant's husband and caused him to fall multiple times. It is further submitted that respondents No. 3 and 6 also assaulted the complainant's son, Mayur, who tried to pacify the situation. Thus, all the accused formed an unlawful assembly, physically and verbally assaulted the complainant and her family members, and, in addition, made caste-based abusive remarks against the petitioner, her husband, and her son, thereby committing the offences as mentioned in the FIR.
3. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the Sessions Court, without assigning any reason and without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 15 of the Atrocity Act, failed to issue the mandatory notice to the victim/complainant as the victim belongs to the SC/ST community.
Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:29:27 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2385/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined
4. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the documents on record, it appears that notices were issued to the respondents, and ample opportunity was provided to them to appear and present their case. However, they have chosen not to appear to defend themselves or oppose the application. It is undisputed fact that the applicant belongs to the SC/ST community and the offences are alleged under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the Atrocity Act.
5. Considering the fact that, while deciding the regular bail application, the learned Judge failed to appreciate the mandatory provisions of Section 15 of the Atrocities Act, as no notice was issued to the victim, and bail was granted in favour of the accused without issuing such mandatory notice, the present application deserves consideration. In this regard, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hariram Bhambhi v. Satyanarayan, reported in AIR 2021 SC 5610, wherein it was observed that allowing an application for bail without issuing notice to the complainant and without affording an opportunity of hearing amounts to a clear infraction of the statutory mandate. Therefore, any order granting bail in such circumstances is not sustainable in light of Sections 15A(3) and 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act.
6. In view of the above, and considering the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of X v. The State of Uttar Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:29:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2385/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined Pradesh, dated 13.12.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 5385 of 2024, as well as the breach of the mandatory provisions under the Atrocities Act, the present application is hereby allowed. This Court finds that it was not a fit case for granting regular bail to the accused. The learned Trial Court has committed a grave error, and therefore, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The regular bail granted to the respondent-accused is hereby cancelled. The accused is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from the date of this order, and the Investigating Officer is directed to scrupulously comply with the mandatory provisions of the BNSS prior to mechanically arrest the accused.
Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:29:27 IST 2025