Gujarat High Court
Tathya Pragneshbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 4 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14073/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 14073 of 2025
==========================================================
TATHYA PRAGNESHBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHIT TOLIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with BIREN J PANCHAL(9300)
for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS ZEAL H SHAH(9811) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK A DAVE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR with MR DHAWAN
JAYSWAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 04/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging
the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R.
No.11191069230241 of 2023 registered with S.G. Highway 02
Traffic Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences
punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304, 504, 506 (2) and
114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 177, 184
and 134 (b) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
2. Heard learned senior advocate Shri Harshit Tolia appearing
with learned advcoate Mr. Biren J. Panchal and learned advocate
Ms. Zeal H. Shah for the applicant. He submitted that the
applicant has been arrested in connection with the present
offence on 20.07.2023 and investigation of the offence is over
and charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant had undergone
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14073/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
incarceration for more than 2 years. It is the case on the part of
the applicant that taking facts of case of the prosecution at its
face value, at best, the offence punishable under Section 304(a)
of the Indian Penal Code can be said to be made out against the
present applicant and not the offence punishable under Section
304 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant herein had preferred
a discharge application in this regard before the learned
Sessions Court which came to be dismissed and therefore, the
applicant has preferred Criminal Revision Application No.1406 of
2023 before this Court and the same is still pending. He
submitted that, at one stage, the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court had heard the said Revision Application and had found
some substance in the arguments canvassed on behalf of the
present applicant. Therefore, there are all chances of the
applicant succeeding in the said Revision Application and if the
applicant succeeds in the said Revision Application, the
applicant would be charged for an offence punishable under
Section 304(a) of the IPC and having regard to the period of
incarceration undergone by the applicant, it can be said that the
applicant has already undergone the sentence for the said
offence. He further submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court had permitted the present applicant to request the learned
Sessions Court for an adjournment pending the said Revision
Application and because of the pendency of the Revision
Application before this Court, the request for an adjournment is
made on every occasion before the Trial Court by the applicant
as well as by the prosecution. Filing the Revision Application
before this Court is a legal right available to the present
applicant and therefore, the applicant cannot be said to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14073/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
delaying the trial merely because he has filed the Revision
Application which is still pending before this Court. He also
submitted that some of the victims have also filed an application
before the learned Sessions Court for further investigation of the
offence and the said applications are also still pending before the
learned Sessions Court for adjudication and the pendency of the
said applications is also one of the reasons for delay in trial. He
also submitted that the prolonged incarceration of the applicant
pending the trial would amount to pre-trial conviction. He
therefore submitted to allow the present application and enlarge
the applicant on regular bail subject to suitable conditions.
Learned Senior Advocate has sought to rely upon the following
judgments in support of his submissions:
1. In case of State of Gujarat V/s. Haidarali
Kalubhai reported in (1976) 1 SCC 889.
2. In case of Sushil Ansal V/s. State through CBI
reported in (2014) 6 SCC 173.
3. In case of Girishbhai Maganlal Pandya V/s.
State of Gujarat reported in (2016) 1 GLH 126.
4. In case of Mayur Mukundbhai Desai V/s. State
of Gujarat & Anr. In Special Criminal
Application No.9133 of 2017 before Hon'ble High
Court of Gujarat.
5. In case of Nitinchandra Somnath Raval V/s.
State of Gujarat & Others reported in (2019) 14
SCC 676.
6. In case of V. Senthil Balaji V/s. Deputy
Director, Directorate of Enforcement reported in
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626.
7. In case of Manish Sisodia V/s. Enforcement
Directorate reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14073/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
1920.
8. In case of Gudikanti Narsimhulu V/s. Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor Shri. Hardik A. Dave appearing
for the Respondent-Sate has opposed the present application.
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties. At the outset, it is
required to be noted that this is the third successive application
filed by the present applicant. The applicant had earlier
preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 19868 of 2023 which
was sought to be withdrawn by the applicant as this Court had
expressed its disinclination to allow the said application. The
said application was withdrawn by the applicant on 20.12.2023.
Thereafter, the applicant had preferred another application being
Criminal Misc. Application No.24121 of 2024 which was
dismissed by this Court vide order dated 18.12.2024. While
dismissing the said application, this Court had made the
following observations:
"5.1 The present applicant had earlier preferred
Criminal Misc. Application No.19868 of 2023. The
said application was allowed to be withdrawn by
this court on 20.12.2023 and while permitting to
withdraw the said application, a liberty was granted
to the applicant to file an application afresh after a
period of six months, if the trial does not proceed in
the meantime. The present applicant has preferred a
Criminal Revision Application No.1406 of 2023
against the order passed by learned trial court for
framing charge against the present applicant for an
offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC. The
said Revision Application is pending before this
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14073/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
court. The record indicates that in the said Revision
Application, on several occasions, adjournments are
sought for by the present applicant as well as the
prosecution. The present applicant had been
permitted to request the learned trial court for an
adjournment by this court. Thus, the trial has not
proceeded further.
5.2 At the outset it is required to be noted that
present is the case wherein nine people
unfortunately lost their lives and several others had
received severe injuries on the body and one person
out of them is still stated to be in the state of coma.
This is on account of an act of rashness on the part
of the present applicant. The applicant was driving a
Jaguar car which was involved in the incident. The
car was being driven in an excessive speed at the
time of 1:00 AM i.e. midnight. The car rammed into
people who were standing on the road trying to help
the victim of the accident which had occurred prior to
the incident.
5.3 It is sought to be contended on behalf of the
present applicant that the applicant was not aware
that there would be people present on the road at
the time of midnight and therefore the applicant had
driven the vehicle with an excessive speed. The
material available on record in the form of
statements of the witnesses, who were the co-
passengers of the applicant in the car, indicates that
while the applicant was driving the vehicle in an
excessive speed, these witnesses had asked him to
reduce the speed of the vehicle. However, the
present applicant did not yield to the said request
and continued to drive the vehicle with an excessive
speed with impunity.
5.4 The material available on record also indicates
that there was sufficient light at the place of incident
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14073/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
in the form of street lights and therefore, it prima
facie appears that the applicant was in a position to
notice the presence of the people on road from some
distance. Despite the same, the applicant had
continued to drive the vehicle in an excessive speed.
The report from the manufacturer of the car indicates
that the applicant had not applied breaks to the
vehicle till 0.5 seconds prior to the incident and even
till 0.5 seconds prior to the incident; the speed of the
vehicle was 130.5 kilometers per hour.
5.5 The material available on record also indicates
that the applicant has a history of rash driving and
in the past also has caused several vehicular
accidents because of such rash driving.
6. This Court has not gone into the aspect as to
whether the offence punishable under Section 304 of
IPC is made out against the present applicant or not,
since the said issue is pending at large before this
court in the Revision Application."
5. The order of this Court dated 18.12.2024 passed in
Criminal Misc. Application No. 24121 of 2024 was carried by the
applicant to the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave to
Appeal (Criminal) No.2308 of 2025 and the said proceedings had
been allowed to be withdrawn by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide
order dated 15.04.2025. The learned Senior Advocate appearing
for the applicant is not in a position to indicate any change in
the circumstances after the aforesaid orders.
6. Having regard to these facts, no case is made out. Hence,
the application for the Regular Bail is dismissed.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
AHS
