Mahendrasinh (Mahendraji) Chaganji Gohel vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to regular bail. The Court considered several factors, including the FIR registration date relative to the alleged incident date, the applicant's period of custody (since October 17, 2019), the conclusion of the investigation, the maximum sentence that could be imposed, the absence of antecedents, and the inability of the prosecution to present special circumstances against the applicant. Prima facie, the Court was of the opinion that it was a fit case to exercise discretion and enlarge the applicant on bail. The applicant was ordered to be released on regular bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of like amount, subject to several conditions, including not misusing liberty, not obstructing investigation, surrendering passport, not leaving Gujarat without permission, marking presence monthly, and not changing residence without permission. The trial court was cautioned not to be influenced by the preliminary observations made by the High Court regarding the evidence.

Facts

This matter concerns a criminal miscellaneous application filed by Mahendrasinh (Mahendraji) Chaganji Gohel under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail. The applicant is accused in FIR C.R. No.II-92/2019 registered with Mansa Police Station, District Gandhinagar, for offences under Sections 174 and 175 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 132(1)(b) of the GST Act. The FIR was registered on August 28, 2019, concerning an alleged incident on June 29, 2019. The applicant has been in custody since October 17, 2019. The investigation has concluded, and no antecedents are reported against the applicant. The State opposed the bail application, citing the nature and gravity of the offence.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the nature of the offences under Sections 174 and 175 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 132(1)(b) of the GST Act, and the stage of investigation? Petitioner's argument: The applicant argued that considering the nature of the offence, they should be enlarged on regular bail with suitable conditions. Revenue/State's argument: The respondent-State opposed the grant of regular bail, citing the nature and gravity of the offence. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, under the instructions of the Investigating Officer, was unable to bring on record any special circumstances against the applicant.