TITLE: Sanjaykumar Mahobatji Solank V state of Gujarat
Decided On-: July18, 2023
20815 of 2022
CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Ilesh Vora
INTRODUCTION- The applicant seeks regular bail in connection with the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3), and 114 of the IPC as well as Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act through this subsequent application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
FACTS OF THE CASE
According to the prosecution’s case, the victim was lured by applicant-accused number 1 and then kidnapped, taken to various locations, and maintained a sexual relationship with. Three people were charged with the aforementioned offences in accordance with the FIR. The applicant in this case was taken into custody on February 27, 2022, and has been there ever since. The victim’s statement was recorded by the knowledgeable trial court after the charge was framed, and it is presented with the paperbook at page No. 1 of this application.
COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION
The applicant’s knowledgeable attorney, this is a case of a love affair and the victim has not fully backed up the prosecution’s case because during the cross-examination, she categorically denied the act of sexual relationship that is allegedly being made against the applicant. Given these facts, a knowledgeable defense attorney for the applicant, argued that since the applicant has been imprisoned since February 27, 2022, the issue of interfering with the prosecution’s evidence has not arisen.
However, the learned APP for the respondent-State, Ms. Asmita Patel, vehemently opposed the applicant’s request for bail and argued that because the applicant had previously withdrew the application and there are no new circumstances to consider, the court cannot at this time grant him the benefit of bail while the trial is ongoing. this submission. She therefore urged that, given the victim’s age and the seriousness and gravity of the offence, no judicial Discretion may be used in the applicant’s favour.
It appears that she changed her story during the cross-examination after hearing knowledgeable solicitors representing the various parties and after reading the documentation submitted, including the victim’s deposition. Therefore, this Court considers it inappropriate to discuss the merits of the case while the trial is ongoing. Therefore, this Court believes that the applicant has made a case for bail despite not having a position on the case’s merits.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Steffi Desousa
