Gujarat High Court
Sanjay Haribhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 3 August, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17583/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 17583 of 2026
==========================================================
SANJAY HARIBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS RIDDHI M YADAV(13299) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HIMANSHU PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 03/08/2026
ORDER
[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on
behalf of the respondent – State of Gujarat.
[2.0] Present successive application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) has been preferred by
the applicant herein – original accused No.3 before filing of charge-sheet
seeking regular bail in connection with FIR being CR
No.11194005250024 of 2025 registered with Ahmedabad City ACB
Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offence under Sections 7, 12,
13(1) and 13(2) of the of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act,
2018 [for short “PC Act“].
[3.0] The case as per the complainant is that, the complainant is doing
business of property brokerage work and also doing Visa Consulting
Work and he used to give work of visa to Om Global Tours and Visa
Consultants and he knows its owner Kamlesh Manishbhai Gajjar for the
last five years. It is alleged in the FIR that one of the accused Shiv Kumar,
ASI of Delhi Police had demanded bribe of Rupees One Crore from the
Page 1 of 15
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:44:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17583/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2026
undefined
complainant stating therein that the name of complainant is disclosed in
FIR No.187/2025 and if the complainant does not give the bribe amount,
they would declare the complainant’s name as accused in the said FIR.
Thereafter, he asked the complainant to talk with other co-accused
persons Sanjay Patel i.e. present applicant accused and Chitresh Sutariya.
It is further alleged that thereafter, again and again the accused Chitresh
Sutaria along with the present applicant had demanded bribe amount of
One Crore on behalf of ASI Shivkumar from the complainant through
whatsapp calls. Further, after negotiations the accused agreed that if the
complainant gives Rs. 80 lakhs, his name would be removed from the
charge-sheet as absconder and they would return 17 passports and other
original documents which were seized by them during raid. It was agreed
to give Rs.10 Lakh as advance and remaining amount shall be paid to the
accused persons after completion of work. Since the complainant did not
wish to pay the bribe to the accused persons, he filed complaint with ACB
Police Station. In this regard the offence came to be registered.
[4.0] Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the present
applicant has nothing to do with the offence and he is falsely enroped in
the offence. Further, the applicant is a private person and no offence
under the PC Act is made out or gets attracted against the present
applicant. He has further submitted that accused No.2 who was
attributed with similar allegations has been released on bail by the
coordinate Bench of this Court. The allegation against accused No.2 was
that he entered into conversation with the complainant on behalf of
accused No.1 and therefore, applicant is entitled to get the benefit of
parity. He has further submitted that applicant is not having any past
antecedent and is not in any manner involved in the present offence and
allegations made by the complainant are very vague and general in
nature and are baseless and do not disclose any ingredients to establish
Page 2 of 15
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:44:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17583/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2026
undefined
any of the charges under the PC Act. Further he has submitted that there
is no any electronic evidence which supports the allegations of whatsapp
calls being made by the present applicant, no device, no CDR and no
certificate obtained under Section 65(B) of the IT Act. Even, there is no
flight risk of the present applicant and therefore, he has requested to
allow the present application.
[5.0] Per contra, learned APP appearing for the respondent – State has
vehemently opposed the present application on the ground that the
present applicant has abetted the offence by using whatsapp call
through UK based SIM card and sufficient material is collected by the
investigating agency which shows clear involvement of the present
applicant and that applicant has abetted the offence. Not only that,
present applicant has also deleted his whatsapp chat and has tampered
with the evidence. The name of the present applicant is disclosed since
inception and applicant was in contact and collusion of accused No.1 and
had initially demanded One Crore and facilitated in illegal gratification of
One Crore which was subsequently settled at Rs.80 lakh to remove the
name of the complainant as absconder from the charge-sheet and to
return 17 passports alongwith original documents seized by the accused
No.1 and complainant gave Rs.10 lakh in advance and while he was giving
the remaining amount, at that time, raid was laid and accused were
caught red-handed. She has further submitted that investigation is still
going on and is at nascent stage and many other people are involved in
the said offence. She has further submitted that for doing illegal act of
playing with legal proceedings and investigation, accused persons have
sought illegal gratification from the complainant.
[5.1] So far as claim of benefit of parity with accused No.2 made by the
learned advocate for the applicant is concerned, accused No.2 was
Page 3 of 15
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:44:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17583/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2026
undefined
released merely on technical ground as he was not supplied with grounds
of arrest and therefore, the applicant herein is not entitled to ask for
benefit of parity. She has also submitted that if the applicant is released
on bail, possibility of tampering with evidence cannot be ruled out.
[6.0] Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties
and perused the investigation papers.
[7.0] While deciding bail application, the Court has to consider the
involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, the jurisdiction to
grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well settled principles
having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and the
following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an
application for bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the
punishment and the nature of the materials relied upon by the
prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the
witnesses and threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable
possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or
the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing
of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;
(v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other
considerations are required to be considered.
[8.0] At the outset, it is pertinent to note that on 11.06.2026, reasoned
order was passed dismissing the earlier bail application and thereafter, in
the present application, the applicant has failed to point out any change
in circumstances.
[9.0] Having heard the learned advocate appearing for the respective
parties and going through the record, prima facie, it appears that
investigation is still in progress. The accused No.1 is yet to be arrested.
Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:44:13 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17583/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2026 undefined
Initially, he had filed quashing petition which came to be withdrawn and
subsequently he filed anticipatory bail application which also came to be
dismissed yesterday and due to this reason, accused No.1 is not arrested
and accused No.2 was released on technical ground (i.e. not furnishing
ground of arrest) and hence, argument canvassed by learned advocate
for the applicant that allegations against accused are much graver than
those made against the present applicant and therefore, the applicant is
entitled to get benefit of parity since accused No.2 has been considered,
is not acceptable at this stage.
[9.1] So far as involvement of present applicant is concerned,
complainant is engaged in Visa Consulting Work and used to give work to
Om Global Tours and Visa Consultants and while he was present in his
office, at that time, officials of Delhi Crime Branch raided his office and
seized 17 passports and some original documents like Aadhar Card, ATM
Cards, Driving license, election cards etc. and cash of Rs.20,000/- in
connection of the offence being CR No.187/2025 registered with Delhi
Crime Branch wherein name of complainant was disclosed as accused and
as the name of complainant was shown as proposed accused, to settle
the dispute, accused No.1 alongwith his friend accused No.2 came and
they both acted as a mediator and had received the notice on behalf of
the complainant from accused No.1 to get record his statement before
the Delhi police and documents were seized from the office of the
complainant were taken into custody of the Delhi Police. Hence, to
conceal the name of the complainant and to wind up the proposed
proceeding against the complainant and to give clean chit, accused No.2
on behalf of accused No.1 demanded One Crore towards illegal
gratification and it was instructed by accused No.1 to the complainant to
contact accused No.2 and the present applicant and pursuant to the said
instruction, accused No.2 and present applicant were in constant touch
Page 5 of 15
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:44:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17583/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2026
undefined
of the complainant and continuously demanded illegal gratification and
name of complainant was mentioned in the office register with Delhi
Crime Branch and he was declared as an absconder but nowhere
mentions about the documents seized from the office of the
complainant and in collusion of accused persons, to delete the name of
complainant from the charge-sheet, illegal gratification of Rs.80 lakh was
finalized out of which Rs.10 lakh was paid in advance and it was decided
to part with remaining amount after receiving 17 passports and original
documents. As the complainant did not want to give illegal gratification
to the accused persons, he had approached the ACB Police Station and in
this regard, offence was registered against the accused persons.
[9.2] Herein, the applicant – accused is a private person and accused
No.1 is public servant working as ASI, Delhi Crime Branch. The evidence
of mobile recording in produced on record in form of pen-drive. The
transcript is also annexed with the investigation papers which clearly
reveals involvement of the present applicant. Accused No.2 has received
illegal gratification and came to be caught red-handed and presence of
phenolphthalein powder was also noticed. After receiving the said
amount of illegal gratification, accused No.2 informed present applicant
through whatsapp that, “Rs.10 lakh received” and present applicant has
also confirmed the said fact by replying “Ok” which clearly reveals the
complicity of the present applicant in the aforesaid offence and even in
conversation and transcript, involvement of present applicant is clearly
revealed and present applicant instructed accused No.2 about receipt of
illegal gratification. All these facts are apparent from the investigation
papers and investigation is still going on. Accused No.1 is a policeman
and conversant with law and is a legally trained mind. The CDR, mobile
data and statement of witnesses are yet to be recorded and investigation
is going on and therefore, if the applicant is released on bail, then
Page 6 of 15
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:44:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17583/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2026
undefined
possibility of tampering with evidence cannot be ruled out. Even, voice
spectrography test is yet to be conducted and applicant has also deleted
the whatsapp conversation and he was operating his said whatsapp
account on UK SIM Card and subsequently he has deleted chats also and
all these factors are required to be investigated and material is yet to be
collected.
[9.3] Present applicant has abated in offence and influenced
investigation in aid of accused No.1 and under the PC Act, “attempt”
itself is an offence. Further, section 12 of the PC Act provides
punishment for ‘abetment’, which reads as under:
“12. Punishment for abetment of offences. – Whoever abets any offence
punishable under this Act, whether or not that offence is committed in
consequence of that abetment, shall be punishable with imprisonment for
a term which shall be not less than three years, but which may extend to
seven years and shall also be liable to fine.”
The public trust in the governmental institution depends heavily
on the integrity of public servant and mechanism provided under the PC
Act to deter the corruption. The intention of legislation is aimed to
ensure honest conduct by public officials and transparency in the public
administration which typically covers direct commission of offence under
the PC Act such as to accept bribe, misuse of public office or amassing
disproportionate assets and equally aimed section 12 of the PC Act which
deals with the punishment for abetment of such offences. This section
recognizes that corruption often does not occur in isolation. The
individuals who encourage, assist, influence or facilitate the commission
of corruption related offences can also be held liable and section 12 of
the PC Act ensures that such abettors do not escape responsibility simply
because they do not personally receive any unlawful advantage or abuse
of public office or he is not holding the public office. The provision reads
Page 7 of 15
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:44:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17583/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2026
undefined
to the effect that whoever abets any offence punishable under this Act
whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of such
abetment. Meaning of word “abetment” is defined under Section 12 of
the PC Act. To understand section 12 fully, it is aimed to examine the
legal meaning of abetment.
[9.4] It is undisputed fact that accused persons have received Rs.10 lakh
in advance in first part and while the complainant was giving remaining
part of gratification, accused No.2 is caught red-handed but it is needless
to say that under Section 7 of the PC Act, demand itself is an offence
which amounts to criminal misconduct under Section 13 of the PC Act.
Further it is seen that, Section 7 speaks of the “attempt” to obtain a bribe
as being in itself an offence. Mere demand or solicitation, therefore, by a
public servant amounts to commission of an offence under Section 7 of
the P.C. Act. The word “attempt” is to imply no more than a mere
solicitation, which, again may be made as effectually in implicit or in
explicit terms. Further, actual exchange of a bribe is not an essential
requirement to be prosecuted under this law. Further, those public
servants, who do not take a bribe directly, but, through middlemen or
touts, and those who take valuable things from a person with whom they
have or are likely to have official dealings, are also punishable as per
Sections 10 and 11 of the Act 1988 respectively. In this regard, reference
is required to be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal vs. The State of Punjab reported in
2025 INSC 320, wherein in paragraphs 17, 18, 21, 23 and 24, it has been
observed and held as under:
“17. Section 7 is with regard to a public servant taking gratification
other than the legal remuneration in respect of an official act. On
the other hand, Section 13 of the Act, 1988 is with regard to
criminal misconduct by a public servant. A public servant could be
said to have committed an offence of criminal misconduct, if he
habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to
obtain from any person for himself or for any other person anyPage 8 of 15
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:44:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/17583/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2026
undefined
gratification other than the legal remuneration as a motive or
reward such as mentioned in Section 7 of the Act. 18. In State of
M.P. and another v. Ram Kishna Balothia and another reported in
AIR 1995 SC 1198, this Court considered the nature of the right of
anticipatory bail and observed as under:
“We find it difficult to accept the contention that Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an integral part of
Article 21. In the first place, there was no provision similar to
Section 438 in the old Criminal Procedure Code? Also
anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of right. It is
essentially a statutory right conferred long after the coming
into force of the Constitution. It cannot be considered as an
essential ingredient of Article 21 of the Constitution. And its
nonapplication to a certain special category of offences
cannot be considered as violative of Article 21.”
(Emphasis supplied)
21. The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious
offence like corruption are required to be satisfied.
Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional
circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that
the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or the
allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. So far
as the case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said that any
exceptional circumstances have been made out by the
petitioner accused for grant of anticipatory bail and there is
no frivolity in the prosecution.
23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the 11
sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The
presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which
the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for
anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of
the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous
homage to the accused’s liberty can, sometimes, defeat the
cause of public justice.
24. If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure
corruption free society, then the courts should not hesitate in
denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations in
the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has
to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that
once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, the
court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant –
accused of indulging in corruption.”
Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:44:13 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17583/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2026 undefined
The aforesaid view has recently on 26.05.2026 been reiterated by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State by Lokayuktha
Police v. K. Rangayya reported in 2026 INSC 574 : 2026 SCC
OnLine (SC) 963. In view of above and keeping in mind the decisions of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (i) Manoj Narula v. Union of India
[(2014)9 SCC 1]; (ii) Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh [(2012)3
SCC 64]; (iii) K.C. Sareen v. C.B.I. [(2001)6 SCC 584]; (iv) Subramanian
Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation [(2014)8 SCC 682]
and (v) Neera Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2017)8 SCC
757], no case is made out to grant regular bail to the applicant when the
allegations of corruption, which are serious one, are made against the
applicant and accused No.1 who is working in the police department and
it was the duty of the applicant and accused No.1 to maintain integrity
and law & order, though they have made demand and attempted to
receive the illegal gratification for facilitating deletion of name of
complainant from the charge-sheet and therefore also, no case is made
out to grant bail to the present applicant.
[9.5] Under general criminal law in India, principles are provided under
the IPC. Section 107 defines “abetment” of things. Abetment includes to
instigate a person to commit an offence engaging in conspiracy to
commit an offence intentionally, aiding the commission of offence
through acts and illegal omission or facilitation which encourage the
abetment to assist in concealment of corrupt act or support unlawful
gain and such a person can be held liable for abetment. Herein, present
applicant – accused has facilitated the accused Nos.1 and 2 in commission
of offence and for that ample evidence is collected by the investigating
agency and charge-sheet is filed against the present applicant – accused
which clearly reveals the abetment as present applicant is involved as a
facilitator to accused Nos.1 and 2 who had operated behind the scene.
Hence, even a non-public servant can be convicted or proceeded with for
Page 10 of 15
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:44:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17583/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2026
undefined
abetment of corruption in aid of section 12 of the PC Act. In this regard,
reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi vs. State Represented by
the Inspector of Police Spe / CBI / ACB / Chennai reported in AIR 2025
SC 3007 as well as in the case of P. Nallammal & Anr. vs. State,
represented by Inspector of Police reported in (1999) 6 SCC 559 and
section 12 of the PC Act is a cornerstone provision in promoting the
transparency and honest governance across the country.
[10.0] One more aspect is also required to be considered, so far
concept of the bail is concerned, purpose of the bail is not a punitive but
a preventive. While granting bail, the Court has to take care the
availability of the accused at the time of trial and second important
aspect is that possibility of the tampering with an evidence of the
prosecution. Further, while granting bail, the Court has to satisfy itself
about the interest of prosecution. One of the criteria which is required to
be considered while considering bail is interest of prosecution witnesses.
This Court is of the considered opinion that if the present accused is
enlarged on bail, the possibility of accused misusing his liberty and
tampering with evidence of prosecution and flight risk cannot be ruled
out.
[10.1] Herein, the applicant is facing charges for offence of
abetting corruption, demand of illegal gratification of Rs.1 Crore which
came to be settled at Rs.80 lakh. It is needless to say that considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of offence. In this regard, it is
apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Ajwar vs. Waseem and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine
(SC) 974 and Aqeel Ahmed vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine (SC) 499, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court observed that the probability of tampering of the witnesses and
Page 11 of 15
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:44:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17583/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2026
undefined
repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood
of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the
possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of
justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail.
[10.2] Further, in the case of CBI vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported in
(2013)7 SCC 452, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 34
as under:
“34. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the
nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof,
the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the
character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the
accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses
being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and
other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for
the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words
“reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence”
which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only
satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused
and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie
evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage,
to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.”
At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh
alias Lalla Babu and Another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446 is also
required to be referred to wherein it has been held that the concept of
liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but is a restricted one and no
element in the society can act in a manner by consequence of which the
life or liberty of others is jeopardized. Even, in view of the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushanta Kumar Dhalasamanta
vs. State of Odisha rendered in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal
(Cri.) No.17256/2024, it would not be in the interest of justice to enlarge
Page 12 of 15
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:44:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17583/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2026
undefined
the applicant on bail as still investigation is going on and accused No.1 is
yet to be arrested.
[10.3] Herein, the co-accused, who is yet to be arrested, is a fence-
sitter and working in the Police Department and thus having legally
trained mind and therefore, if the present applicant is released on bail,
possibility of tampering with evidence cannot be ruled out. At this stage,
it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Rambhau vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2001 SC
2120 wherein it has been held that if the co-accused played significant
role in negotiating on the figure of amount and having notes exchanged
at the dictate of main accused, it amounts to accused having
substantially abetted the crime. Further, merely filing of charge-sheet is
a cosmetic change and it is needless to say that, filing of the charge-
sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the
prosecution. On the contrary, filing of the charge-sheet establishes that
after due investigation the investigating agency, having found materials,
has placed the charge-sheet for trial of the accused persons. In this
regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Virupakshappa Gouda vs. State of
Karnataka reported in (2017) 5 SCC 406. Whatever circumstances
existed against the present applicant before filing of charge-sheet do
exist even after filing of the charge-sheet and therefore also, merely
because charge-sheet is filed, is not a ground to consider the applicant
for regular bail when co-accused is on run and is yet to be arrested.
Hence, the argument on behalf of the applicant that charge-sheet is filed
and therefore, applicant be enlarged on bail is concerned, said argument
is not accepted since filing of charge-sheet does not lessen the
allegations made by the prosecution. At this stage, it is also apposite to
refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeru
Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2014)16
Page 13 of 15
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:44:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17583/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2026
undefined
SCC 508 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 16 as
under:
“16. The issue that is presented before us is whether this Court can
annul the order passed by the High Court and curtail the liberty of the
2nd respondent. We are not oblivious of the fact that the liberty is a
priceless treasure for a human being. It is founded on the bed rock of
constitutional right and accentuated further on human rights principle.
It is basically a natural right. In fact, some regard it as the grammar of
life. No one would like to lose his liberty or barter it for all the wealth of
the world. People from centuries have fought for liberty, for absence of
liberty causes sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum
of any civilized society. It is a cardinal value on which the civilisation
rests. It cannot be allowed to be paralysed and immobilized. Deprivation
of liberty of a person has enormous impact on his mind as well as body.
A democratic body polity which is wedded to rule of law, anxiously
guards liberty. But, a pregnant and significant one, the liberty of an
individual is not absolute. The society by its collective wisdom through
process of law can withdraw the liberty that it has sanctioned to an
individual when an individual becomes a danger to the collective and to
the societal order. Accent on individual liberty cannot be pyramided to
that extent which would bring chaos and anarchy to a society. A society
expects responsibility and accountability from the member, and it
desires that the citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a cherished
social norm. No individual can make an attempt to create a concavity in
the stem of social stream. It is impermissible. Therefore, when an
individual behaves in a disharmonious manner ushering in disorderly
things which the society disapproves, the legal consequences are bound
to follow. At that stage, the Court has a duty. It cannot abandon its
sacrosanct obligation and pass an order at its own whim or caprice. It
has to be guided by the established parameters of law.”
Thus, the powers granting bail though discretionary in nature
cannot be exercised in arbitrary, capricious and injudicious manner and
heinous nature of crime warrants more caution. Even, as per the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar
Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee reported in (2010) 14 SCC 496, the Court
has to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction very cautiously and strictly
in compliance with the basic principles. Herein, this Court is of considered
view that prima facie involvement and accusation of the applicant is
established. Considering the said aspect, without discussing further
Page 14 of 15
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:44:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17583/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2026
undefined
about evidence and the merits of the case, the present application does
not deserve any consideration since co-accused is yet to be arrested and
investigation is underway.
[11.0] For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of view that present
is not a fit case to exercise discretion under Section 483 of the BNSS in
favour of the applicant. Accordingly, present successive application,
does not deserve any consideration and is hereby dismissed.
[12.0] It is made clear that the observations made in the present
order are tentative in nature and the learned trial Court shall decide the
case of the applicant independently on its own merits without being
influenced by the observations made in the present order.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
Page 15 of 15
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 05 21:44:13 IST 2026
