Gujarat High Court
Pratik @ Piyush Vinodbhai Tilakdhari ... vs State Of Gujarat on 13 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21425/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 21425 of 2025
==========================================================
PRATIK @ PIYUSH VINODBHAI TILAKDHARI TIWARI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KISHAN R CHAKWAWALA(9846) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. BHARGAV BHATT with MR RM CHAKWAWALA(1519) for the
Applicant(s) No.1.
LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE MR. R.S. SANJANWALA with MR. DHRUV
H CHAUDHARY(12328) for the Respondent(s) No.2.
MR. HIMANSHU K. PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No.1.
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 13/11/2025
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 CR. No.11191015240503 of 2024
registered with Nikol Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences
punishable under Sections 189, 189(2), 115(2), 103(2), 76, 61(2) and 296(B) of
the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act.
2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Bhargav Bhatt for the applicant. He
submitted that earlier the applicant had preferred Criminal Misc. Application
No.3581 of 2025 which was dismissed by this Court vide Order dated
26.03.2025. However, at the relevant time the prosecution had made this Court
believed the incorrect facts and the material aspect was within from this Court.
He further submitted that the prosecution had filed the documentary evidence
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21425/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
list before the Trial Court and the material produced along with the list was
also provided to the present applicant. Thus, the applicant came across the pen
drive containing CCTV footages of the place of incident. The detailed analysis
of the said CCTV footages would indicate that the averments made in the FIR
are far from truth. He further submitted that the entire case of prosecution rests
upon the concocted facts. He submitted that the perusal of the CCTV footages
would indicate that when the alleged incident of assaulting the deceased had
happened, the present applicant was nowhere near by the place of incident. As
per the case of prosecution, the incident of assaulting the deceased had
happened inside the gate of the society. The CCTV footages indicate that the
applicant had entered the premises of society thereafter and at the time when
the alleged incident of assaulting the deceased had taken place, the present
applicant was standing outside the society with other persons. The other
witnesses were also standing outside the gate of the society, and therefore, by
no chance they can be said to have seen the incident with their own eyes. The
investigation of the offence has not been carried out in free and fair manner. He
further submitted that after the incident, the deceased was carried to a private
hospital and the case papers of that hospital do not indicate any injuries being
found on the body of the deceased. Moreover, the Inquest Panchnama of the
body of the deceased was carried out which also reflects no injury being found
on the body of the deceased. However, surprisingly the P.M. note indicates
some injuries being found on the body of the deceased. These create doubt
about the case of prosecution itself. He further submitted that the incident
alleged in the FIR had taken place at around 20:48 p.m. on 22.09.2024 whereas
the FIR was lodged at 4:10 a.m. on 23.09.2024. However, at 4:20 a.m. on
23.09.2024, an entry with regard to the accidental death was registered with the
Police Station in question which also creates doubt about the timing of the FIR
as the FIR in question was in fact lodged that 4:10 a.m. on 23.09.2024, there
was no reason for the Police authorities to register the accidental death report at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21425/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
4:20 a.m. He further submitted that the first informant who is a practicing
Advocate before this Court, had immediately after the incident activated his
resources and had seen to it that the FIR narrating the facts convenient to him
was recorded. The call details of the mobile phone of the first informant
suggests that he was in constant touch of his counsel as well as the present
Investigating Officer. He further submitted that all the witnesses who are
purported to be the eye witnesses to the incident have given their verbatim
same statements before the Investigating Officer. The perusal of the CCTV
footages falsifies the version given by these witnesses. He further submitted
that the first informant is trying to encash the death of the deceased who
happens to be his father for some oblique motive. Learned Advocate for the
applicant has taken this Court through minutest details of the case of
prosecution and has tried to make out the discrepancies and contradictions
found in the material available on record and as per his submission, those
discrepancies and contradictions would make the case of prosecution highly
unreliable. He also submitted that the applicant has been arrested in connection
with the present offence on 09.12.2024 and thus, undergone incarceration for a
period of almost one year. The applicant is not having any other antecedents.
Learned Advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant
has good reputation in the society and no useful purpose would be served by
keeping the applicant in Jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that
the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be
imposed by this Court if released on bail. Learned Advocate for the applicant
has sought to rely upon the following judgments in support of his submissions:-
(i) Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Shamsher Singh Verma Versus State of Haryana reported in 2015 (0)
AIJEL-SC 57356;
(ii) Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kailas
S/o Bajirao Pawar Versus State of Maharashtra reported in 2025 (0)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21425/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
AIJEL-SC 75877;
(iii) Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Babu
Singh And Ors. Versus The State of U.P. reported in 1978 AIR 527;
(iv) Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case
of Kasim Versus State;
(v) Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case
of Aman Gaur Versus State;
(vi) Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in case of Dal Chand And Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
3. Learned APP has opposed the present application contending that the
present is the successive application filed by the applicant after dismissal of the
earlier application filed by him. The order passed by this Court on 26.03.2025
dismissing the application filed by the applicant had been carried by the
applicant to the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal
(Criminal) No.7637 of 2025 which was not entertained by the Hon'ble Apex
Court and liberty was granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court to the applicant to
file an application afresh after a period of one year. After dismissal of the
earlier application filed by the applicant, there is no change in the
circumstances, and therefore, the present successive application is not
maintainable. He further submitted that all the material which is now pressed
into service on behalf of the applicant, was very much available at the time
when the applicant had preferred the earlier application. Therefore, it is not
correct on the part of the applicant to submit that he came across the said
material only when the prosecution had submitted the list of documentary
evidence before the Trial Court. He further submitted that as per the settled
legal position, if there is discrepancy between ocular evidence and the other
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21425/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
material available on record, the version received in the ocular evidence is
required to be believed. He also submitted that the present application is
nothing but, an abuse of process of law. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the
present application.
4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala appearing with learned
Advocate Mr. Dhruv H. Chaudhary for the original complainant has also
opposed the present application submitting that the present successive
application is not maintainable in the absence of any material change in the
circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier application. He also submitted
that the CCTV footages which are heavily relied upon by the applicant, were
very much available at the time of filing of an earlier application and those
CCTV footages were relied upon by the applicant during the course of hearing
of the earlier applications filed by him before the learned Sessions Court as
well as this Court and it was after considering those aspects that the learned
Sessions Court as well as this Court had dismissed the applications filed by the
applicant. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application.
5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. At the outset, it is required to
be noted that the applicant had earlier preferred Criminal Misc. Application
No.3581 of 2025 before this Court. This Court had dismissed the said
application vide Order dated 26.03.2025. While dismissing the said application,
this Court had made the following observations: -
"5. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the material
available on record. As per the case of prosecution, the dispute had
occurred between the parties on the issue of parking of a car. The
material available on record indicates that the co-accused viz Vicky had
telephoned the first informant some time prior to the incident alleged in
the FIR and in the said phone call, the said co-accused Vicky had
threatened the first informant, and thereafter, the first informant went to
his car where the alleged incident has taken place. He was initially
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21425/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
assaulted by the co-accused with a mortar, and thereafter, when the
deceased who happens to be the father of the first informant, intervened
to rescue the first informant, he was also brutally assaulted by the
accused persons. Initially, the assault was made by the other co-accused
viz. Vicky, and thereafter, once he fell down, the applicant herein had
also inflicted kicks and fist blows to the deceased. As per the PM Note,
several injuries were suffered by the deceased, which had resulted into
his death. The eye-witnesses to the incident have categorically stated
that the applicant herein had inflicted kicks and fist blows to the
deceased It is sought to be contended on behalf of the applicant that the
witnesses whose statements are recorded during the course of
investigation, happened to be the interested witness, as they are either
the relatives or friends of the first informant. Be that as it may, merely
because the witnesses are interested witnesses, their statements cannot
be discarded at this stage Having regard to the same, no case is made out
to release the present applicant on anticipatory bail Hence, the present
application stands dismissed."
6. The Order of this Court dated 26.03.2025 was carried in challenge by
the applicant to the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal
(Criminal) No.7637 of 2025. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide Order dated
19.05.2025, disposed of those proceedings by granting liberty to the applicant
to renew his request for bail after completion of one year. Thus, the Hon'ble
Apex Court did not find any reason to interfere with the observations of this
Court referred to hereinabove. It is also required to be noted that though the
liberty was granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court to the applicant to renew his
application for bail after one year, the present successive bail application has
been filed by the applicant within period of few months after the order of the
Hon'ble Apex Court dated 19.05.2025. It is sought to be contended on behalf
of the applicant that the present application is filed by the applicant as he came
into possession of a pen drive containing CCTV footages of the place of
incident provided to him by prosecution along with the list of documentary
evidence submitted to the concerned Trial Court. It is required to the noted in
this regard that the CCTV footages in question were very much forming part of
the record of charge-sheet filed against the applicant and the entire set of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21425/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
charge-sheet papers were given to the applicant after the Investigating agency
had filed the charge-sheet. The material also indicates that during the course of
investigation, the Panchnama of the CCTV footages in question was carried out
and the relevant Panchnamas were also provided to the applicant along with the
charge-sheet. Therefore, it is not correct on the part of the applicant to submit
that he came in possession of CCTV footages only after the earlier application
filed by him was dismissed by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
It is also required to be noted that the submissions with the help of those CCTV
footages were made on behalf of the applicant at the time of hearing of the
earlier application filed by him and this Court had discarded those submissions.
7. There are several eye witnesses to the incident including the first
informant who in their statements have categorically stated that the present
applicant had assaulted the deceased as observed by this Court in its earlier
order. The applicant had assaulted the deceased with kick and fist blows as
stated by the eye witnesses. The P.M. note also indicates several injuries being
suffered by the deceased because of the assault and those injuries had resulted
into the death of the deceased. It would not be appropriate for this Court at this
stage to disbelieve the version given by the eye witnesses simply because the
incident is not captured in the CCTV footages. The discrepancies and
contradictions sought to be canvassed on behalf of the applicant, would require
evidence to be led and appreciated during the course of trial. Having regard to
these aspects, no case is made out. Hence, the present application is dismissed.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
RAVI OZA
At the time of pronouncement of present order, learned Advocate
appearing for the applicant submitted that during the pendency of the present
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21425/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
application, the first informant has been examined on oath before the learned
Trial Court yesterday i.e. 12.11.2025 and he has stated that the incident had
taken place 5 minutes prior to the arrival of the present applicant. He also
produces the copy of deposition which is ordered to be taken on record.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
RAVI OZA
