Contradictions In Eyewitness Accounts And Suppression Of Crucial Evidence Weaken The Prosecution's Case: Telangana High Court High Court of Sikkim Sets Aside Trial Court’s Decision on Maintainability of Suit: Preliminary Issues Must Be Purely of Law Courts Must Focus on Substance Over Procedure, Says High Court Writ Petitions Against Civil Court Orders Must Be Under Article 227: Patna High Court Reiterates Jurisdictional Boundaries Kerala High Court Upholds Eviction, Rejects Sub-Tenant's Kudikidappu Claim Contractual Employment Does Not Confer Right to Regularization: Jharkhand High Court Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act for Past Domestic Violence: Bombay High Court Judicial Proceedings Cannot Be Instituted After Four Years: MP High Court in Quashing FIR Against Retired Engineer Orissa High Court Invalidates Lecturer Recruitment Advertisements for Non-Compliance with UGC Standards Public Interest Jurisdiction Not a Substitute for Private Litigation: Karnataka High Court Declines PIL Cognizance under Section 188 IPC is illegal without a public servant’s complaint:Kerala High Court Juvenile Justice Act Prevails Over Recruitment Rules: Madras High Court Rules Juvenile Records Cannot Bar Employment in Police Services" Calcutta High Court Quashes MR Distributorship Selection Due to Irregularities in Godown Compliance and Selection Process Once the driver has established the validity of his license, the insurer cannot escape liability without conclusive proof to the contrary: J&K HC Belated Claims Cannot Be Entertained: Kerala High Court Overturns CAT Decision on Date of Birth Correction DNA Tests Cannot Supersede Established Legal Presumptions: Himachal Pradesh HC Section 26E of SARFAESI Act Overrides VAT Act: Secured Creditor's Charge Has Priority Over State's Tax Dues: Gujrat High Court High Court of Delhi Clarifies Jurisdiction in Commercial Dispute: 'Procedural Efficiency Must Be Upheld

Gujarat High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Atrocities Act Case, Citing "No Ingredients of Sections 107 or 306 of IPC Made Out"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment delivered on March 7, 2024, the Gujarat High Court, presided over by Judge J.C. Doshi, granted anticipatory bail to the appellants in the case of Poonam Anshul Singh vs. State of Gujarat. This decision was made in the backdrop of an FIR filed under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and concerns raised under Sections 107 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The court noted, "Even if the FIR is taken as gospel truth, no ingredients of sections 107 or 306 of the IPC are made out." This observation became a pivotal point in the court's decision to grant bail, as it highlighted the lack of direct evidence linking the accused to the alleged offenses.

The case, filed with Manjalpur Police Station under FIR No. 11196003230874, involved complex issues surrounding the alleged abetment of suicide. The court referred to several notable judgments, including 'Kumar @ Shiva Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka' and 'Kashibai and others Vs. State of Karnataka', to underscore the challenges in proving abetment of suicide and understanding the context of the deceased's actions.

In its detailed analysis, the court observed that the delayed filing of the FIR and the absence of direct allegations against the petitioners in the suicide note were significant considerations. The judgment further reassured, "The appellants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 each with one surety of like amount," imposing strict conditions to ensure their cooperation with the ongoing investigation.

This decision marks an important development in the jurisprudence of anticipatory bail under the Atrocities Act, particularly concerning the statutory bar operating in such cases. The court, taking cognizance of the 'Prithviraj Chauhan vs Union of India' case, carefully balanced the statutory restrictions with the facts of the case.

In conclusion, the court clarified, "At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the appellants on bail." This statement underlines the court's commitment to ensuring a fair and unbiased trial, despite its observations and the decision to grant anticipatory bail.

Date of Decision: 7th March 2024

POONAM ANSHUL SINGH VS STATE OF GUJARAT

Similar News