[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Dineshbhai @ Bhuvaji Bachubhai Rangpra vs State Of Gujarat on 5 December, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12766/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 12766 of 2025
==========================================================
DINESHBHAI @ BHUVAJI BACHUBHAI RANGPRA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
DHRUV TOLIYA(9249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JK SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 05/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This successive bail application is being filed by the accused
Dinesh @ Bhuvaji Bachubhai, in connection with the offence,
registered with Thorala Police Station, Rajkot for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 120B, read with Section 114 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.
2. Brief facts giving rise to file present application are that
deceased Vijay Dhirubhai Mer, resident of Rajkot was having relation
with the daughter of A1 Suresh Shakariya, as a result, both had eloped
together and on this issue, the FIR of kidnapping and sexual abuse
came to be filed against the deceased. Thereafter, on account of the
criminal prosecution, the victim returned back to the house of A1. The
present applicant A2 is the friend of A1. In such circumstances, the
accused keeping grudge against the deceased about the incident of
taking away the minor daughter, conspired to kill the deceased, as a
result, on 19.08.2021, at about 08:30 night, the accused armed with
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12766/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
knife and skyth (dhariya) came on the motorbike at the place where the
deceased was used to sit in the company of his friend and fatally
assaulted the deceased, as a result, he died on the spot. The medical
evidence shows that as many as 22 external injuries found on the body
of the deceased and according to P.M. doctor, the cause of death was
multiple injuries received over the body. On the basis of FIR, and upon
due investigation, the accused came to be chargesheeted and after
framing the charge by the Sessions Court, the case for recording of the
further evidence of material witnesses. The only eyewitness who was
present at the scene - Harshil Vinodbhai Shapra (PW:6), has fully
supported to the prosecution case and also identified the present
applicant as assailants in the Court.
3. We have heard learned advocate Mr.Dhruv Tolia and learned
APP Mr.J.K. Shah, for the respective parties.
4. Mr.Dhruv Tolia, appearing for and on behalf of the applicant,
restricted his arguments only on the issue of delay in trial proceedings
as the custody period is four years and chances of conclusion of the
trial in a reasonable period would bleak or remote. Reference was
made to the case of Ashim @ Asimkumar Bhattacharya Vs. NIA
(2022 (1) SCC 695), to contend that pending the trial, a person cannot
be kept in custody for an indefinite period of time, and it clearly
violates the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution as
deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not
consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12766/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
5. In such circumstances, as referred to above, it is submitted that
till date, only six witnesses have been examined by the trial Court and
the progress of the trial is in slow space and as such, there is no fault
on the part of the accused and therefore, considering the long
incarceration coupled with the delay in proceedings, and more
particularly after examination of the material witnesses, there is no
possibility of witnesses being influenced or tampering with the
evidence. Thus, therefore, it is prayed that the case is made out for
exercising judicial discretion.
6. On the other hand, opposing the prayer, learned APP Mr.J.K.
Shah has submitted that this is a case like honour- killing and the
deceased was brutally killed by the accused with deadly weapon and as
many as 22 injuries were found on this body. Thus, considering the
nature of the offence, and the manner in which, offence was executed,
the Court may not exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. So far
as delay in trial proceedings is concerned, it is submitted that the Court
may direct the Trial Court for expeditious trial and within a stipulated
time, the trial may get over and considering the deposition of
eyewitness, there are all chances that the applicant may flee from the
justice and therefore, considering the gravity and seriousness of the
offence, and interest of the society at large, no case is made out and the
application may not be entertained.
7. In the facts of the present case, the offence of murder being took
place on 19.08.2021. The accused were arrested on 20.08.2021. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12766/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
chargesheet in the case came to be filed on 15.11.2021. The charge was
framed by the Sessions Court on 25.05.2022. The seized muddamal
being not produced by the police upto August-2024. Thereafter,
summons to the witnesses being issued and lastly, the eyewitness PW:6
H.V. Shapra was being examined and his cross examination is
completed on 10.10.2025. After examination of factual background
facts, having regard to the role attributed to the present applicant herein
and evidence on record, in my opinion, there is a prima facie case and
reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed a serious
offence of murder. It is relevant to note that after framing of the
charge, the accused never made a complaint to the Trial Court that his
trial is unnecessary delayed or proceeded in a slow space. I am
conscious about the settled position of law with respect to the undue
delay of the trial proceedings and right of the accused as enshrined
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court on this
aspect in its various judgments held that Article 21 is of great
importance because it enshrines the fundamental right of the individual
liberty, but at the same time, balance has to be struck between the right
of individual liberty and interest of the society, as no right can be
absolute and reasonable restriction can be placed on them. In such
circumstances, in my opinion, no case is made out for exercising
judicial discretion and striking balance between the right of the
accused and interest of the society, justice would be met, if the Trial
Court asked to complete the trial proceedings expeditiously within nine
months from the date of this order, as the sole eyewitness has already
been examined and as reported by the learned APP that the trial would
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12766/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
be over in a reasonable time.
8. Thus, with the aforesaid observations and directions, this
application stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.
9. The observations are tentative and prima facie nature and
confined to adjudication of this application, I hope that the Trial Court
shall make an endeavour to complete the trial proceedings, as far as
possible expeditiously in accordance with law.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
Rakesh
