Gujarat High Court
Mehul Kumar Bhanu Bhai (Bhanuprasad) ... vs State Of Gujarat on 2 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11902/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 11902 of 2025
==========================================================
MEHUL KUMAR BHANU BHAI (BHANUPRASAD) SUTHAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. VATSAL S PRAJAPATI(16276) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 02/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being CR No. I- 11204047250058 of 2025 lodged with Nadiad West Police Station, Kheda for the offences punishable under sections 103(1), 238(a) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. N.D Nanavaty with learned advocate Mr. Vatsal Prajapati for the applicant and learned APP for respondent-State.
3. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. N.D Nanavaty submitted that the applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 18.02.2025 and since then the applicant is in custody. The investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. The case of prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence and there is no material whatsoever produced in the charge-sheet which would connect the applicant with the offence in question. The only material which is available on record against the present applicant is in the form of confession and that too in the presence of the Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 01:50:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/11902/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined police, which would not be admissible against the present applicant. He has therefore submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. N.D Nanavaty has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Padman Bibhar Vs. State of Odisha [Spl. Cri. 17440 of 2024 ] in support of his submissions.
5. Learned APP has opposed the application contending that the deceased was in company of the present applicant when the incident alleged in the FIR had taken place. The investigating agency had recorded the statement of witness namely Bharathai Hasmukhbhai Patel, the said witness in his statement before the investigating officer, has categorically stated that the applicant had declared before him that, on the fateful night the scuffle had taken place between himself and the deceased. This fact would indicate that the deceased had died in the incident of scuffle which had taken place between the applicant and himself. Thus, the applicant himself was responsible for the death of the deceased. He therefore submitted that the application may be dismissed.
6. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record.
7. From the material available on record, it appears that the applicant herein suspected his wife to be having an affair with the deceased and therefore, it was decided by the applicant to teach the deceased a lesson. So far as the aspect of the affair between the wife of the applicant and the deceased is concerned, the wife of the applicant, namely Rupa, in her statement given before the investigating officer on 18.02.2025, has stated that six months Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 01:50:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/11902/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined prior to the incident, the deceased confessed his love for her. Thereafter, the deceased as well as the wife of the applicant used to talk to each other on mobile phone frequently. The wife of the applicant also used to call the deceased regularly. She had concealed these fact from her husband, i.e., the present applicant. She has also stated in her statement that the deceased used to come to her house when the husband i.e. the present applicant was not present in the house. The said statement given by the wife of the present applicant suggests that there was some kind of relationship between the deceased and the wife of present applicant and they were hiding their relationship from the present applicant. She has also stated that the nature of her husband, i.e, the present applicant had changed since last few days, thus, it appears that the applicant had come to know about the relationship between the applicant and the deceased.
7.1 Thus, there was a strong motive for the applicant to commit the present offence. The wife of the applicant in her statement has stated that on 15.02.2025, the applicant had told her that he had received phone call from the deceased and he was required to go to Thasara and had returned home at around 10:30 at night and upon return he had informed his wife that he had scuffle with the deceased. Therefore, it emerges that, the applicant was in the company of the deceased on the evening of 15.02.2025 and the scuffle took place between himself and the deceased. Thereafter, the deceased was found dead on the next day. The investigating officer has also recorded the statement of another witness namely Bharatbhai Hasmukhbhai Patel on 19.02.2025. The said witness has also informed that on the fateful day scuffle had taken place between the present applicant and the deceased and this information was provided by the present applicant to the witness on 16.02.2025.
Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 01:50:05 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/11902/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined
8. Perusing the aforesaid documents available on record, the involvement of present applicant in the offence cannot be ruled out, at this stage, hence, the present application stands dismissed.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J) After pronouncement of the order, the learned advocate for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the present application.
Permission as sought for is granted.
Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of as withdrawn.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J) Radhika Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 01:50:05 IST 2025