Gujarat High Court
Hansaben Valjibhai Dhacha vs State Of Gujarat on 16 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2385/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO. 2385 of 2024
==========================================================
HANSABEN VALJIBHAI DHACHA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PREMAL S RACHH(3297) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED THRU CONCERNED POLICE STATION for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6,7,8
MR HK PATEL, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 16/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
Admit. Learned APP waives service of notice of admission
for the respondent-State. Though notice is served to respondent
Nos.2 to 8, they remained absent.
1. By way of present appeal under Section 14-A of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Atrocity Act"), the applicant
has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated
03.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Jamnagar below Exhibit 1, whereby the learned Sessions Judge
has granted regular bail to the respondent - original accused.
2. Facts of the case are that the applicant herein is the
original complainant, and respondents No. 2 to 8 are the original
accused persons in connection with FIR being C.R. No.
11202038240533/2024 registered with Meghpar Padana Police
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2385/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
Station, Jamnagar, for the offences punishable under Sections
115(2), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 352, and 351(3)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as under Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(v-a) Atrocity Act, and Section 135(1) of
the Gujarat Police Act. It is stated in the complaint that on
15.07.2024 at around 9:00 PM, while the applicant was at her
residence, respondents No. 2 and 3 forcefully entered her house
and started abusing the husband of the petitioner. Thereafter,
respondent No. 3 called the other accused persons, who arrived
at the complainant's house armed with deadly weapons such as
an iron pipe and wooden log. Subsequently, respondent No. 2
physically assaulted the complainant by kicking and punching
her, and respondent No. 5 grabbed the collar of the
complainant's husband and caused him to fall multiple times. It
is further submitted that respondents No. 3 and 6 also assaulted
the complainant's son, Mayur, who tried to pacify the situation.
Thus, all the accused formed an unlawful assembly, physically
and verbally assaulted the complainant and her family members,
and, in addition, made caste-based abusive remarks against the
petitioner, her husband, and her son, thereby committing the
offences as mentioned in the FIR.
3. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the
Sessions Court, without assigning any reason and without
complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 15 of the
Atrocity Act, failed to issue the mandatory notice to the
victim/complainant as the victim belongs to the SC/ST
community.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2385/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
4. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and having perused the documents on record, it appears
that notices were issued to the respondents, and ample
opportunity was provided to them to appear and present their
case. However, they have chosen not to appear to defend
themselves or oppose the application. It is undisputed fact that
the applicant belongs to the SC/ST community and the offences
are alleged under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the
Atrocity Act.
5. Considering the fact that, while deciding the regular bail
application, the learned Judge failed to appreciate the
mandatory provisions of Section 15 of the Atrocities Act, as no
notice was issued to the victim, and bail was granted in favour of
the accused without issuing such mandatory notice, the present
application deserves consideration. In this regard, this Court
deems it appropriate to refer to the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hariram Bhambhi v.
Satyanarayan, reported in AIR 2021 SC 5610, wherein it was
observed that allowing an application for bail without issuing
notice to the complainant and without affording an opportunity
of hearing amounts to a clear infraction of the statutory
mandate. Therefore, any order granting bail in such
circumstances is not sustainable in light of Sections 15A(3) and
3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act.
6. In view of the above, and considering the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of X v. The State of Uttar
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2385/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
Pradesh, dated 13.12.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 5385 of 2024,
as well as the breach of the mandatory provisions under the
Atrocities Act, the present application is hereby allowed. This
Court finds that it was not a fit case for granting regular bail to
the accused. The learned Trial Court has committed a grave
error, and therefore, the impugned order is quashed and set
aside. The regular bail granted to the respondent-accused is
hereby cancelled. The accused is directed to appear before the
Investigating Officer within two weeks from the date of this
order, and the Investigating Officer is directed to scrupulously
comply with the mandatory provisions of the BNSS prior to
mechanically arrest the accused.
Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI
