Gujarat High Court
Amitbhai @ Hareshkumar Sagarbhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 23 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2241/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 18/09/2025
Pronounced On : 23/09/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 2241 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
AMITBHAI @ HARESHKUMAR SAGARBHAI MER(PATEL) & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VICKY B MEHTA(5422) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
MR D H KANTHARIYA(7505) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR KRUNAL R JUWALIYA(13190) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HARDIK SONI APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for respondent - State of Gujarat.
2. By way of this appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the applicants have prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11192008200586 of 2020 registered with Bavla Police Station, Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 00:29:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2241/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined District: Ahmedabad, for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Vicky Mehta appears for the applicants submits that the so-called incident occurred on 12.06.2020, and on the same day FIR was registered against total 7 persons. Pursuance to registration of FIR, investigation commenced and as soon as applicants have come to know about the registration of the FIR, immediately, they have approached this Hon'ble court by way of filing quashing petition wherein co-ordinate bench of this court has protected the applicants considering the charge of accusations levelled against the applicants. The copy of said order is placed on record which clearly goes on to show that applicants were protected from 23.06.2020 and said protection continued till 27.06.2025. The said quashing petition had not been entertained by the co-ordinate bench solely on the count that applicants herein failed to supply certified copy of the FIR in the said proceedings. He submits that, in fact, at that relevant point of time, the Sessions Court was not functioning in Dholka, and subsequently Sessions Court started to function and applicants herein had made application for the purpose of obtaining certified copy of the FIR, the said application is still pending and certified copy of the FIR had not been provided by the court as those documents are not at all available in the court due to non-availability of the said set of documents. In short, protection is continued to the present applicants till 27.06.2025, and during the interregnum period applicants have gone to the police station for number of times, and extended all kind of co-operation to the investigating officer.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta further submits that if Hon'ble court would make cursory glance upon the charge of Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 00:29:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2241/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined accusations leveled against the applicants in the body of the FIR, in that event, it would have been found out that first in point of time complainant had gone to the house of the accused no.1, and at that relevant point of time, in the house of the accused no.1, the so-called incident occurred. So far as second part of incident is concerned, the said incident occurred in the premises of Gram Panchayat. He has read the provisions of The Atrocities Act and submitted that for the purpose of invoking the charges enumerated in the body of the FIR, certain basic and essential ingredients are required to be satisfied. One of the important ingredient is that the said incident should have been occurred at a place within a public view and witnessed by the neutral/independent witnesses. Admittedly, first part of the allegations were levelled inside the house of the accused no.1, and nobody had witnessed the said incident. So far as the second part of incident is concerned that members of the Panchayat and other persons were very much available, in fact, any untoward incident could not had been occurred on that day. The applicant no.1 is Vice- Sarpanch by designation and at that relevant point of time he was also holding the charge of Sarpanch, and complainant and their relatives are working as contractor in the Gram Panchayat, and they have put forward certain bills for clearance, those bills have not been cleared by the applicant no.1 as an In-Charge Sarpanch specifically stating that the amount mentioned in the bill is on much higher footing, and therefore, those bills are required to be cleared after obtaining consent of the Sarpanch, and due to which disputes have been cropped up between the parties. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta further submits that, in fact, if Hon'ble court would go through the rest of the charges levelled against the applicant, Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 00:29:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2241/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined in that event, it could have been found out that except Section 506(2), rest of the offences are bailable, and if at all, prosecuting agency is in a position to prove the charge of guilt against the accused persons, in that event, maximum punishment could be imposed is upto 7 years, and as per the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in number of case laws, more particularly, in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar mechanical arrest could not be possible, for that purpose, prosecution has to establish the case. He further submits that considering the above-stated totality of the facts of the matter, this is a fit case wherein discretionary power of bail is required to be entertained by this Hon'ble court by allowing the present application. He has put heavily reliance upon following case laws and submitted that as per the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case laws are squarely applicable to the facts of the present matter and applicants may be enlarged on bail.
(i) In the case of Karuppudayar Vs. State Rep. By the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Trichy & Ors.
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8778-8779 of 2024.
(ii) In the case of Rabindra Kumar Chhatoi Vs. The State of Odisha & Anr. rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1608/2020.
(iii) In the case of Kiran Vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and Another reported in 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC 75829
5. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicants will keep themselves available during the course of Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 00:29:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2241/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined investigation, trial also and will not flee from justice.
6. Learned advocate for the applicants on instructions states that the applicants are ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed while releasing the applicants on anticipatory bail. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that considering the above facts, the applicants may be granted anticipatory bail.
7. Learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni appears for the respondent -
State and has strongly opposed the present bail application and submitted that pursuance to the registration of the FIR, investigation commenced, but immediately within no time applicants have obtained order of protection, and therefore, investigation could not have reached to its logical conclusion, but during the interregnum period, statement of number of witnesses have been recorded. He submits that during the course of the investigation, investigating officer has recorded statement of total 3 witnesses out of which one witness was close relative of the complainant, and statement of Talati and other member of Gram Panchayat have already been recorded. Talati has stated that in his presence no incident has been occurred in the premises of Gram Panchayat, whereas member of Gram Panchayat has stated that due to clearance of bill certain disputes have been cropped up between the parties, at that relevant point of time, applicants herein had abused the complainant and other witnesses, and then after, they had pacified that and disputes have been resolved, but subsequently FIR has been registered by the complainant. Learned APP further submits that there are antecedents against the present applicants. Considering the above-stated totality of the facts of the matter, Hon'ble Court may not have to exercise discretionary power of bail in favour Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 00:29:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2241/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined of the applicants.
8. Learned advocate Mr. D. H. Kanthariya who appears on behalf of original complainant has objected the present application with vehemence and submitted that the complainant was working as a contractor in Gram Panchayat, and had carried out certain works for which he had produced certain bills, those bills have not been cleared by the accused persons, and therefore, disputes have been cropped up. The complainant had insisted upon to clear those bills, and at that relevant point of time, casteist slurs have been used by the applicants, and said fact is clearly found out from the record. He further submits that the cross complaint is also registered against the complainant by the members of the rival group which clearly goes onto show that incident of quarrel took place wherein applicants had made certain derogatory remarks against the caste of the complainant and witnesses, and the said incident is witnessed by the number of persons. He further submits that there are antecedents against the present applicants. Therefore, considering the above-stated totality of the facts of the matter, bail application of the present applicants may not be entertained. Learned advocate Mr. Kanthariya has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kiran Vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and Another reported in 2025 INSC 1067.
9. Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 00:29:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2241/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined for bail are (i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided. I have considered the following aspects.
(a) That as per case of the prosecution, the so-called incident occurred on 12.06.2020, and on the same day FIR was registered against total 7 persons. It transpires from the record that upon registration of the FIR, the applicants herein have immediately approached this Hon'ble court by way of filing quashing petition wherein co-ordinate bench of this court has protected the applicants considering the charge of accusations levelled against the applicants, however, the said quashing petition had not been entertained by the co- ordinate bench solely on the count that applicants herein failed to supply certified copy of the FIR in the said proceedings.
(b) Further, as per the case of the prosecution, the applicant no.1 was a Vice-Sarpanch by designation and at that relevant point of time he was also holding the charge of Sarpanch, and complainant and their relatives are working as contractor in the Gram Panchayat, and they have put forward certain bills for clearance, those bills have not been cleared by the applicant no.1 as an Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 00:29:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2241/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined In-Charge Sarpanch specifically stating that the amount mentioned in the bill is on much higher pedestal, and therefore, those bills are required to be cleared after obtaining consent of the Sarpanch, and due to which disputes have been cropped up between the parties. It further prima-facie transpires with regard to the first incident that the complainant had gone to the house of the accused no.1, and at that relevant point of time, in the house of the accused no.1, the so-called incident occurred, and nobody had witnessed the said incident. So far as second part of incident is concerned, the said incident occurred in the premises of Gram Panchayat, and no untoward incident could have been occurred on that day.
(c) It further transpires that investigating officer has recorded statement of total 3 witnesses out of which one witness was close relative of the complainant, wherein in the statement of Talati, Talati has stated that in his presence no incident has been occurred in the premises of Gram Panchayat.
10. I have also considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shajan Skaria Vs. The State of Kerala & Anr, reported in 2024 INCS 625, wherein meaning of the expression "intentional insult" explained in Section 3(1)(r) of the Act has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which reads under:-
"The words "with intent to humiliate" as they appear in the text of Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are inextricably linked to the caste identity of the person who is subjected to intentional insult or intimidation. Not Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 00:29:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2241/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined every intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a SC/ST community will result into a feeling of caste-based humiliation. It is only in those cases where the intentional insult or intimidation takes place either due to the prevailing practice of untouchability or to reinforce the historically entrenched ideas like the superiority of the "upper castes" over the "lower castes/untouchables", the notions of 'purity' and 'pollution', etc. that it could be said to be an insult or intimidation of the type envisaged by the Act, 1989."
11. Considering the above ratio, prima facie, offence under the Atrocities Act are not attracted.
12. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665 and also the decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, I am inclined to allow the present application.
13. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest / appearance of the applicants in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11192008200586 of 2020 registered with Bavla Police Station, District: Ahmedabad, the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that applicant:
Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 00:29:47 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2241/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 29.09.2025 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. and the IO shall ensure that no unnecessary harassment or inconvenience is caused to the applicant;
(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;
(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;
(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change their residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders;
(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week;
(g) an order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigative agency, to investigate into the charges against the person who seeks and is granted pre-arrest bail;
Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 00:29:47 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2241/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined
(h) It is open to the police or the investigating agency to move the learned trial Court for a direction under Section 483(2) to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, non-cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial, etc.-
14. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.
15. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) AMIT ITALIAN Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 00:29:47 IST 2025