Pavan @ Bhuriya Punnubhai Narade vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court

Pavan @ Bhuriya Punnubhai Narade vs State Of Gujarat on 8 July, 2025

                                                                                                                        NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/CR.A/10/2025                                             ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025

                                                                                                                        undefined




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                                         R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10 of 2025
                                         (REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET)

                      =======================================================
                                  PAVAN @ BHURIYA PUNNUBHAI NARADE
                                                Versus
                                       STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                      =======================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR KT BELADIYA(9101) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                      MS KRUTI M SHAH(2428) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                      MR HARDIK SONI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      =======================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI

                                                       Date : 08/07/2025
                                                              ORAL ORDER

1. The present appeal is filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for regular bail in connectio1n with the FIR being C.R. No.11210056201449/2020 registered with the Dindoli Police Station, Surat for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.

2. Learned advocate, Mr. Beladiya for the applicant submitted that the investigation is over and the chargesheet is filed and the present appeal is preferred after submission of the chargesheet and the applicant is arrested on 15.06.2020 and since then, he is in judicial custody. He submitted that at the time of submission of chargesheet, the prosecuting agency has put reliance upon total 86 witnesses, out of which, 7 witnesses have been Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:04:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined examined and thus, it seems that the trial is proceeding at snail speed, therefore, it will take considerable long time to conclude the proceeding, therefore for indefinite period, the appellant may not be kept behind the bar. He further submitted that other co-accused, who have already been enlarged on bail, are avoiding trial, as a result of which, the trial could not be proceeded further. He submitted that in fact, Test Identification Parade has not been carried out by the concerned IO in the present case and as per the case of the prosecution, the incident has witnessed by more than 10 witnesses and as per their case, the accused have covered their face with the help of handkerchief, however, their movement is recorded in the CCTV footage. He submitted that only on the basis of their movement and physical expression, they have been identified by the witnesses, however, there is no recover or discovery at the instance of the present appellant. He further submitted that the co- accused have already been enlarged on bail by the court concerned, therefore on the ground of parity, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. He, therefore, submitted that considering the facts of the case as also considering the period of incarceration and on the ground of parity, the appellant may be granted bail by imposing suitable conditions.

3. On the other hand, learned APP has objected the Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:04:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined grant of present application looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. He submitted that the role of the present applicant is clearly spelt out from the body of the complaint as well as papers of the chargesheet. He submitted that FIR is lodged against total 3 accused persons, however at the time of submission of the chargesheet, the prosecuting agency has filed chargesheet against total 15 accused persons and has put reliance upon total 86 witnesses. He submitted that it is the specific case of the prosecution that the appellant herein had inflicted knife blow upon the vital part of the body of the deceased and the said fact is corroborated with the postmortem report. He submitted that one of the reason for delay in trial is that the accused are not cooperating with the trial. He submitted that in fact, for one reason or other, the accused are prolonging trial by filing one application and another, seeking unnecessary adjournments and not only that, some of the accused, who had been granted temporary bail, were fled away, which resulted into trial, therefore, learned APP concerned had submitted an application for separation of trial so that the trial can be proceeded further. He submitted that now the charge has been framed and the trial has proceeded further and even 7 witnesses have been examined and thus within near future, the trial would be concluded.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined

4. At this stage, learned APP has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., delivered in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.13378 of 2024 and submitted that in the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed while dealing with an application for bail that once the trial commences, the High Court should not exercise the discretion as it would be fatal to the prosecution case. He, therefore, submitted that as stated above, here in the present case on hand, the trial has proceeded further and it will be concluded within near future, therefore, the discretionary relief in favour of the appellant may not be exercised and the present appeal may be dismissed.

5. Learned advocate, Ms. Shah appearing for the original complainant has adopted the arguments canvassed by learned APP. She, however, brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court that the involvement of the appellant in the commission of crime is clearly spelt out from the chargesheet papers, therefore, this Hon'ble Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the appellant and the present appeal may be dismissed.

6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers of the investigation and considered the allegations levelled against the applicant and the role played by the applicant. I have also considered the reasoning given by the concerned Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:04:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined court while rejecting the bail application and the affidavit filed by the IO opposing the said application.

7. It is the settled position of the law that, at this juncture detailed discussion of evidence and canvassing of the allegations contained in FIR as well as affidavit of the concerned Investigating Officer or the merits of the case as well, is not necessary and should be avoided.

8. It is found out from the record that the appellant

- accused in connivance with other accused, have hatched conspiracy to eliminate the deceased and as a part of conspiracy, the accused have formed an unlawful assembly and reached the place of occurrence armed with deadly weapons, where they have assaulted the deceased mercilessly with deadly weapons, as a result of which, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot and entire incident was recorded in the CCTV footage. It is true that just to hide their identity, the accused have covered their face with handkerchief but the witnesses have identified the accused on the basis of their physical movement and thus, the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence is established. I have also considered the chargesheet papers and found out that, specific name and role is attributed to the appellant at the time of commission of crime. Further, the injuries sustained by the deceased are corroborated with the postmortem report.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined

9. I have also considered the report submitted by the concerned Judge, which was called for by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and on examination of the same, it is found out that the chargesheet was filed on 09.09.2020 and, thereafter, due to corona pandemic, the trial could not be proceeded further till 14.06.2021 and, thereafter, the trial was pending for production of documents during the period between 14.06.2021 to 02.06.2022, thereafter, accused concerned had sought for advocate from legal aid and accordingly, advocate from legal aid was provided to the accused no.4 and, thereafter, the accused nos.2 and 3 had filed discharged application which was decided on 16.12.2022 and, thereafter, charge was framed, however framing of the charge, for one reason or other, the accused remained absent by making excuses, therefore, warrants were issued, which were not served despite repeated requests, therefore, an application for separation of trial was submitted and, thereafter, the trial has proceeded further and as per the said report, out of total 57 witnesses, 7 witnesses have been examined. Thus from the above report, it seems that there is no delay in trial as submitted and it was just because of the tactic adopted by the accused by filing applications one after another and by not remaining present in trial but it seems that as the trial has proceeded, it would be concluded in near future. Therefore, the Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:04:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined contention of learned advocate for the appellant with regard to delay in trial is misconceived.

10. At this stage, I would also like to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) upon which reliance has been placed by learned APP, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the application for bail, has opined that once the trial commences, the High Court should not exercise the discretion as it would be fatal to the prosecution case. Paragraph No.16 of the said decision reads as under, "16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:04:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed."

11. Thus considering the above decision, if the facts of the present case, as discussed above, are examined, in that event, it is evident that the trial is in progress and is going on and if the appellant is enlarged on bail at this stage, in that event, it would adversely affect the trial. Therefore, this is not a fit case, wherein discretion can be exercised.

12. So far as the contention with regard to the grant of bail on the ground of parity is concerned, I would like to refer to and rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the bail application, has considered identical contention with regard to the grant of bail on the ground of parity. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Paragraph Nos.18 & 19 as under, "18. The submission of learned Counsel Mr. Luthra to grant bail to the appellant on the ground that the other co-accused who were similarly situated as the appellant, have been granted bail, also cannot be accepted. It may be noted that parity is not the law. While applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:04:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration. It is not disputed in that the main accused Sh. Kewal Krishan Kumar, Managing Director of SBFL, and KMP of group companies and the other accused Devki Nandan Garg, owner/ operator/ controller of various shell companies were granted bail on the ground of infirmity and medical grounds. The co- accused Raman Bhuraria, who was the internal auditor of SBFL has been granted bail by the High Court, however the said order of High Court has been challenged by the respondent before this Court by filing being SLP (Crl.) No. 9047 of 2023 and the same is pending under consideration. In the instant case, the High Court in the impugned order while repelling the said submission made on behalf of the appellant, had distinguished the case of Raman Bhuraria and had observed that unlike Raman Bhuraria who was an internal auditor of SBFL (for a brief period statutory auditor of SBFL), the applicant was the Vice President of Purchases and as a Vice President, he was responsible for the day- to-day operations of the company. It was also observed that the appellants role was made out from the financials, where direct loan funds have been siphoned off to the Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:04:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined sister concerns of SBFL, where the appellant was either a shareholder or director. In any case, the order granting bail to Raman Bhuraria being under consideration before the coordinate bench of this Court, it would not be appropriate for us to make any observation with regard to the said order passed by the High Court.

19. It is axiomatic that the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. However, if any illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals, or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing similar wrong order. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate the illegality or irregularity. If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people by any authority or by the court, without legal basis or justification, other persons could not claim as a matter of right the benefit on the basis of such wrong decision."

13. Thus considering the above decision, the contention of learned advocate with regard to Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:04:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined grant of bail on the ground of parity is misconceived.

14. At this stage, I would like to put reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav Vs. CBI Through its Director, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 70, wherein, the Apex Court has laid down that, while considering an application for regular bail, the Courts shall have to take into consideration, the following aspects,

(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence;

(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;

(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge;

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court, further, observed at Paragraphs-10 and 16 thus;

"10. In our opinion none of the aforesaid decisions can be said to have laid down any absolute and unconditional rule about when bail should be granted by the Court and when it should not. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and it cannot be said there is any absolute rule that because a long period of imprisonment has expired bail must necessarily be granted.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined

16. We are of the opinion that while it is true that Article 21 is of great importance because it enshrines the fundamental right to individual liberty, but at the same time a balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of society. No right can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on them. While it is true that one of the considerations in deciding whether to grant bail to an accused or not is whether he has been in jail for a long time, the Court has also to take into consideration other facts and circumstances, such as the interest of the society."

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court has in a decision in case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., reported in (2010) 14 SCC 496 has made observation as under, "9. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

"(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii)severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."

17. The Hon'ble Apex Court has in a decision in case of Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr., reported in (2020) 2 SCC 118, it has been held that:-

"12. The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important. No straitjacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused."

18. From the aforesaid discussion, it appears that as Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:04:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined per the prosecution case, the applicant is involved in the serious offence and taking into consideration the complicity of the applicant, there being apprehension of the witnesses being influenced, severity of punishment as drawn from the nature and gravity of the accusations, after taking due consideration of the submissions of the parties, and the settled case law in various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and various Hon'ble High Courts, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for bail.

19. Accordingly, the present application is rejected.

Notice is discharged.

20. Needless to say that observations made herein above are confined to decision of the present bail application.

(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.) Gautam Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:04:40 IST 2025