Rahul Uttam Waghmare vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court

Rahul Uttam Waghmare vs State Of Gujarat on 16 September, 2025

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                           R/CR.MA/15921/2025                                     ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025

                                                                                                                undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
                                   AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 15921 of 2025

                      ==========================================================
                                                    RAHUL UTTAM WAGHMARE
                                                             Versus
                                                       STATE OF GUJARAT
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR. HARESHKUMAR J NIHALANI(16696) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                      MR. HARDIK SONI, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
                      Respondent(s) No. 1
                      ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI

                                                              Date : 16/09/2025

                                                               ORAL ORDER

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. The present successive application is filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11210008231427 of 2023 registered with the Sarthana Police Station, Surat for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.

3. The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the present application are that the FIR came to be lodged by one Jagdishbhai, inter alia, alleging therein that five unknown persons armed with knives and revolvers, three of whom had covered their faces with black cloth, appeared to be about 35 to 40 years, committed robbery of diamonds at around 6:30 a.m., and fled away in Eeco Car. According to the FIR, the alleged robbery took place when the complainant, an employee of Gujarat Angadiya, along with a gunman, namely, Shivkumar were putting parcels of Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:41:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15921/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined diamonds into their Eeco car after collecting it from the persons who came there to deliver the said parcels. With this sort of allegations, the FIR came to be lodged.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant-accused was arrested on 03.09.2023 and since then he is in jail. Learned advocate for the applicant has also submitted that the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant has further submitted that initially the FIR came to be filed against unknown persons, and during the course of investigation, on the basis of statement made by the co-accused, the present applicant has been arraigned as an accused. He has also submitted that as per the FIR, the robbers had covered their face with black cloth, and as such, in such a situation, it is not possible to identify who were the actual perpetrators, however, yet the complainant has identified the applicant in the test identification parade, which is highly improbable. Learned advocate for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant has been arraigned as an accused on surmises and conjectures, on the basis of hearsay evidence. No specific overt act is attributed to the present applicant in the entire body of the FIR or the charge-sheet. Moreover, the other co- accused persons have already been enlarged on bail either by the trial court or by this very Court. He has submitted that the applicant is in jail since 03.09.2023, i.e, for more than two years, and out of 45 witnesses cited by the prosecuting agency to be examined, yet not a single witness has been examined, and as such, it appears that the trial is likely to take long time Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:41:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15921/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined to conclude, and thus, keeping the applicant-accused behind the bar for such an indefinite period, would be nothing but a pre-trial conviction. Under the circumstances, learned advocate for the applicant prays that the applicant may be enlarged on bail on any suitable terms and conditions.

5. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent- State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. He has submitted that the present applicant, along with the other co-accused, hatched a criminal conspiracy, and acting upon the same, committed a robbery of parcels of diamonds worth Rs.4,58,00,000/-. Learned APP has further submitted that Muddamal has also been recovered from the conscious possession of all the accused persons, and during the T.I. Parade, present applicant has been identified by the complainant. Moreover, the present applicant is having past antecedents of the similar nature. Thus, considering the over all facts and circumstances of the present case, there exists a strong prima facie case against the applicant. So far as the ground of parity is concerned, the role attributed to the present applicant is quite distinct and different than the role attributed to the co-accused, who has been enlarged on bail. Learned APP has submitted that thus, considering the role attributed to the applicant-accused, this is a fit case wherein discretionary power of this Court is not required to be exercised in favour of the applicant-accused.

6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15921/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined

7. It appears that the present application is a successive bail application. The earlier bail application filed by the present applicant after submission of the charge-sheet has been rejected by this Court vide a detailed judgment and order dated 19.06.2024, the relevant observations of which I may reproduced herein below;

"5. 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 court while rejecting the bail application and the affidavit filed by the IO opposing the said application.

6. 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.

7. It is found out from the record that the applicant - accused is involved in a serious offence of robbery, which has been executed in connivance with other accused persons. It is found out that on the day of incident, after hatching conspiracy, the accused have interrupted the complainant covering their face armed with revolver and on the point of revolver, robbery has been done by them and, thereafter, fled away and immediately thereafter, the complainant has lodged the FIR admittedly against unknown person because the complainant could not identify any of the accused and on the basis of the registration of the, nakabandi was carried out and during patrolling, the applicant along with other accused have been found out and from the conscious possession of the accused, muddamal diamond worth of Rs.4,58,41,380/- was found out. Not only that, TI Parade was conducted, wherein the applicant has been identified by the complainant.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15921/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined

8. The submission has been made by learned advocate for the applicant that now the investigation is over and the chargesheet has been filed and the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. It is, however, required to be noted that merely filing of the charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. On the contrary, filing of the charge-sheet establishes that after due investigation, the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the charge-sheet for trial of the accused persons. It is also required to be noted that a bail application cannot be allowed solely or exclusively on the ground that the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty by the competent court. However in the facts of the present case, as stated above, there are ample evidence available in the chargesheet papers, which clearly goes on to show that the applicant is involved in the commission of crime. Thus considering the nature of offence, role played by the accused and involvement of the applicant - accused in the commission of crime, the present application deserves to be rejected.

9. 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;

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

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15921/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined "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.

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."

11. 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;

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15921/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined

(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."

12. 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."

13. From the aforesaid discussion, it appears that as 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.

14. Accordingly, the present application is rejected.

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

8. It appears that the aforesaid order passed by this Court Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:41:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15921/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined has not been challenged by the present applicant, and now again the applicant has come with the present application, seeking to release him on bail on the same set of facts and materials, seems to be filed solely on the ground of change of circumstances as the co-accused of the present crime has been enlarged on bail by this very Court vide order dated 23.09.2024. However, parity is not a law. While applying the principle of parity, the Court has to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration. Here, in the case on hand, from the materials place, it appears that the role of the present applicant is quite distinct and different than the role of the co-accused who has been enlarged on bail. In this context, I would like to refer to and rely upon some of the relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Asst. Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Special Leave Petition No.9431 of 2023, decided on 20.11.2023, which read thus;

"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 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 Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:41:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15921/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined 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 appellant's role was made out from the financials, where direct loan funds have been siphoned off to the 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."

9. As per the affidavit filed by the investigating officer before the trial court, the allegations against the co-accused who is enlarged on bail is that he made a 'recky' of the place of occurrence, whereas the present applicant has played an active role in the commission of the crime. The present applicant was a part of the group who made an attack upon Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:41:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15921/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined the complainant and other witnesses and looted the diamonds on the point of revolver. Not only that, there are eye- witnesses to the incident, and the said eye-witnesses have identified the present applicant before the Executive Magistrate during the course of Test Identification parade. The record also reveals that at the time of the incident, the present applicant was having a Koyta (like a long sickle or machete), and on the edge of Koyta, committed a robbery. It was the present applicant who broke the glass of the vehicle from the said Koyta. Moreover, the statements of the police officials who caught the present applicant along with the other co-accused have also been recorded. Thus, from the entire materials on record, it appears that the present applicant was very much available at the place of occurrence, and he had actively participated in the commission of the crime. Ample evidences have been collected by the investigating officer indicating active involvement of the present applicant in the commission of the crime. It appears that on the basis of the FIR, Nakabandi was done, and during patrolling, the present applicant along with the other co-accused were caught along with the Muddamal diamonds worth Rs.4,58,00,000/- and odd. Thus, it clearly appears that the Muddamal diamonds were found from the conscious possession of the accused persons. Moreover, the present applicant is having a criminal history. Thus, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the complicity of the applicant, there is a likelihood of witnesses being influenced and evidences being tampered with.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15921/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined

10. For the foregoing reasons, the present application fails and is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.

11. It is however clarified that the observations made herein- above are for the sole purpose of deciding the present application, and the same shall not have any effect on the merits of the case during trial.

(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) VAHID Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:41:40 IST 2025