Bhimabhai Babubhai Solanki vs State Of Gujarat

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 7688 Guj
Judgement Date : 6 November, 2025

Gujarat High Court

Bhimabhai Babubhai Solanki vs State Of Gujarat on 6 November, 2025

                                                                                                           NEUTRAL CITATION




                           R/CR.RA/1657/2025                                ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025

                                                                                                            undefined




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
                                  SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 1657 of 2025

                     ==========================================================
                                               BHIMABHAI BABUBHAI SOLANKI
                                                          Versus
                                                   STATE OF GUJARAT
                     ==========================================================
                     Appearance:
                     DHRUV TOLIYA(9249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                     MR JASPALSINH R JADEJA(11226) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                     MR. HARDIK Y KOTHARI(6895) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                     MS. PRIYANKA I PATEL(17673) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                     ROHAN SHAH APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                     ==========================================================

                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                                                        Date : 06/11/2025

                                                          ORAL ORDER

1. Mr. Bhimabhai Babubhai Solanki - Accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 235/2024 has assailed the order of framing charge below Exh. 49 dated 12.08.2025 passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, mainly on the ground that the Ld. Sessions Judge did not follow the procedure of supplying the documents before framing the charges, and even when the charge was framed, the accused was in jail and produced through Video Conference.

2. It is further submitted that on that date, i.e., 12.08.2025, the present Applicant was not represented by his Advocate, and it was incumbent upon the Ld. Sessions Judge to provide legal aid to ensure proper representation of Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 00:18:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1657/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025 undefined the accused.

3. Ld. Counsel has further relied upon the Rojkam to point out that on 10th July, 2025, when the documentary evidence was placed on record vide Exh. 45, none of the documents were handed over to the accused, and subsequently, when the charge came to be framed, the Rojkam reflected that the accused was produced before the Court via Video Conference, and his signature and thumb impression were taken on the plea while he was in jail. Since the Applicant - Original Accused was not represented by a private advocate, nor was legal aid provided to him, and considering that the provisions of Section 226 of the CrPC were not followed in their true spirit, it was thus argued that the present Application be allowed.

4. Ld. APP Mr. Rohan Shah, appearing on behalf of the State, argued that no prejudice was caused to the accused since he did not engage an advocate despite having ample opportunity. In those circumstances, it was argued that no palpable error apparent on the face of the record was committed by the Ld. Sessions Judge while framing the charge. Hence, the present Application deserves to be rejected.

5. Heard Ld. Advocates for the respective parties. Perused the Rojkam produced by the Ld. Counsel as well as the chronology of how the trial has proceeded. It transpires that on 10.07.2025, when the documentary evidence was produced, the accused was not brought before the Court Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 00:18:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1657/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025 undefined and was absent. The list of documents was not supplied to him, and on 12.08.2025, he had neither engaged a private advocate nor was legal aid provided. In the absence of proper representation, charges were framed vide Exh. 49.

6. Ld. Advocate has also relied upon the judgment dated 05.04.2021 in Criminal Revision Application No. 245 of 2021, wherein the Ld. Judge of this Court considered in detail the provisions of Section 228 of the CrPC and, in a somewhat similar situation, quashed and set aside the order framing the charge, directing the concerned Sessions Judge to open the case as provided under Section 226 of the CrPC and then follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 227 and 228 of the CrPC and hear the same in accordance with law.

7. Considering that even as of today, the Applicant - Original Accused has not engaged any advocate, it is made clear that for the next date of hearing, i.e., 07.11.2025, the Applicant - Original Accused shall engage a private advocate, and in the absence of such engagement, the Ld. Sessions Court shall provide legal aid on the same date and follow the procedure as held in Manishaben Gajjugiri Goswami vs. State of Gujarat (Criminal Revision Application No. 245/2021, oral judgment dated 05.04.2021). It is also made clear that the documents produced on record vide Exh. 45 shall be supplied to Accused No. 1, i.e., the present Applicant, and the Ld. Judge shall follow the procedure stated in Manishaben (supra).

Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 00:18:41 IST 2025

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1657/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025 undefined

8. With the aforesaid observations, the charge framed at Exh. 49 dated 12.08.2025 in Sessions Case No. 235/2024 is quashed and set aside. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case. The Ld. Sessions Judge is directed to frame the charge after following the due procedure of law as prescribed under Sections 226 and 227 of the CrPC. This order is purely on account of the failure of the Ld. Sessions Judge in not following the provisions of law required after committal of the case under Section 209 of the CrPC. With these observations, the present Application stands disposed of.

9. After passing of the order, the Ld. APP drew attention to the fact that the other four accused have also not engaged advocates. It is open for the Ld. Sessions Judge to provide legal aid in accordance with law to all the other four accused.

10. It is further clarified that if by tomorrow the accused do not engage advocates, one more opportunity may be granted by the Ld. Sessions Court to do so, and in the absence thereof, on the next date, legal aid advocates shall be provided to all unrepresented accused.

(P. M. RAVAL, J) MMP Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Nov 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 00:18:41 IST 2025