| |
CDJ 2026 SC 461
|
| Court : Supreme Court of India |
| Case No : Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 [@ SLP [Crl.] No. 5604 of 2026] |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH |
| Parties : Jitendra Govindbhai Chavda & Another Versus State of Gujarat & Another |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: ------ For the Respondents: ------ |
| Date of Judgment : 25-03-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 115(1), 352, 351(3), 189(2), 191(2), 190 and 324(4) -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Sections 115(1), 352, 351(3), 189(2), 191(2), 190 and 324(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
2. Catch Words:
- Anticipatory bail
- Criminal antecedents
- Cooperation with investigation
- Injuries to victim
3. Summary:
The appellants sought anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR alleging assault and related offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The State argued non‑cooperation with a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and highlighted prior criminal records. The Court granted anticipatory bail only to the father (Appellant 2) on account of his age, setting aside the impugned order for him and imposing conditions to be satisfied by the trial court. The appeal was allowed for Appellant 2 and dismissed for the son (Appellant 1), who was found not to be cooperating and responsible for serious injuries. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.
4. Conclusion:
Appeal Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants seek anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.11208044250939/2025, dated 08.11.2025, registered at Police Station Pradyumannagar, District - Rajkot, for the offences punishable under Sections 115(1), 352, 351(3), 189(2), 191(2), 190 and 324(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
4. Appellant No.1 is the son and appellant No.2 is the father. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellants attacked the victim and caused injuries on his body including a fracture on his nose.
5. Though the learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the appellants did not appear before the Investigating Officer pursuant to the notice issued under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the said fact is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. The learned Counsel appearing for the State also submitted that both the appellants have prior criminal antecedents. One of the prosecution witnesses was pressurized by the son of appellant No.2, who is incidentally the brother of appellant No.1. Considering the above, there is no need for interference with the impugned order.
6. We are inclined to grant anticipatory bail only to appellant No.2, who is the father, taking into consideration his age.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside insofar as appellant No.2 is concerned and he is granted anticipatory bail on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court.
8. The appeal stands allowed qua appellant No.2, accordingly.
9. However, insofar as appellant No.1, who is the son, is concerned, we find that he is not cooperating with the investigation. We further take note of the nature of injuries caused to the victim.
10. Accordingly, on the facts of the case, the appeal stands dismissed qua appellant No.1.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
|
| |
