DHARMESH @ DHARMENDRA @ DHAMO JAGDISHBHAI @ JAGABHAI BHAGUBHAI RATADIA & ANR. versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 07-07-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 1
1
DHARMESH @ DHARMENDRA @ DHAMO JAGDISHBHAI
@ JAGABHAI BHAGUBHAI RATADIA & ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
(Criminal Appeal No. 432 of 2021)
JULY 07, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Bail: Imposition of condition for bail – Free fight between
two groups in Amreli resulting in death of two persons – Case against
13 persons – Appellants, arrayed as accused no.12 and 13, were
arrested – By impugned order, they were granted bail – However,
they were aggrieved by the condition imposed on them for bail
requiring them to deposit Rs.2 lakhs before the trial court as
compensation to victims – Held:  In cases of offences against body,
compensation to the victim should be a methodology for redemption
– Similarly, to prevent unnecessary harassment, compensation has
been provided where meaningless criminal proceedings had been
started – Such a compensation can hardly be determined at the
stage of grant of bail – The direction contained in impugned order
for deposit of compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for the legal heirs of the
deceased is set aside – Specific allegation against the appellants
was that they had beaten the complainant and the witnesses and
not any of the deceased – Apart from the appellants, out of total 13
arrayed accused, 11 were released on bail by the High Court and/
or Sessions Court – High Court in their cases, had imposed stringent
conditions including an embargo from entering the geographical
limits of Amreli and regularly marking presence before the police
station amongst other conditions – In view of that, same terms and
conditions imposed for grant of bail to the appellants – The direction
for deposit of compensation of Rs.2 lakhs is substituted with the
condition that the appellants will not enter the geographical limits
of Amreli for a period of six months except for marking presence
before the concerned police station and to attend the court
proceedings – Appeal allowed.
Palaniappa Gounder v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
[1977] 3 SCR 132 – referred to.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[1977] 3 SCR 132
referred to
Para 12
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
432 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2020 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 17566 of
2020.
Ms. Aastha Mehta, Tushar Gokani, Ms. Vishakha, Atul Kumar,
Advs. for the Appellants.
Aniruddha P. Mayee, Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. An unfortunate incident took place on 10.11.2019, which is
alleged by the complainant to be caused by certain members of his caste
providing assistance to the police which resulted in a free fight where
the appellants herein were also present. Two persons succumbed to
their injuries and an FIR was registered on 11.11.2019 with the Amreli
Police Station against 13 persons, being CR No.I-94 of 2019 under
Sections 302, 307, 324, 323, 506(2), 504, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 120B
and 34 of the IPC as well as Section 135(ii) of the Gujarat Police Act.
In pursuance of the investigations chargesheet was filed in the Court. A
counter FIR was also filed on 11.11.2019, being I-95/2019 against the
complainant and other witnesses under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506(2),
143, 144, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC as well as Section 135(ii) of the
Gujarat Police Act.
2. The appellants before us were arrayed as Accused Nos.12 &
13 and were arrested on 11.11.2019. Upon applying for bail, in terms of
the impugned judgment dated 15.12.2020, bail was granted to them.
However, they are aggrieved by the condition imposed on them for bail,
requiring them to deposit Rs.2 lakh each as compensation to the victims
before the learned trial court within a period of three months.
3. The narrow compass of the arguments before us rests on the
absence of any provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘CrPC’) entitling the Court to impose
such a condition for payment of compensation for grant of bail. It is the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the High Court
imposed this condition for bail in view of the “amended provisions”
relating to victim compensation without referring to any specific provision.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants took us through different
provisions dealing with the aspect of compensation under the CrPC.
5. In respect of the aforesaid, the first p

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.