Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 174 (GUJ)

Satvir Dhirubhai Gida v. State of Gujarat

2025-02-27

M.R.MENGDEY

body2025
ORDER : Order in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1342 of 2025:- To be listed on 18.03.2025. Order in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1 of 2025 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1342 of 2025:- 1. The present application has been preferred by the applicant herein with a prayer to implead the applicant as party respondent in the proceedings of Criminal Misc. Application No.1342 of 2025 which is an application for regular bail filed by one of the accused. 2. Learned senior counsel Mr. Anshin Desai with learned advocate Mr. B. H. Mankad appearing for the applicant in the present application has submitted that the applicant is a victim of the offence which was committed by the respondent herein and having regard to the criminal activities in which the respondent no.2 is involved, the authorities have rightly invoked the provisions of GUJCTOC Act against him. There are three different F.I.R.s registered against the respondent no.2 and all these three F.I.R.s have been lodged against him by personnel of EDF Company of which the applicant is Managing Head and the applicant himself has suffered a murderous assault by the respondent no.2 and thus, the applicant is direct victim of the crimes committed by the respondent no.2 and the applicant is also cited as a witness in the different Charge-sheets filed against the respondent no.2 and therefore, the applicant herein is well within his rights to appear and oppose the bail application filed by the respondent no.2. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment rendered in the case of Jagjeet Singh and Others vs. Ashish Mishra @Monu and Another reported in (2022) 9 SCC 321 , the applicant has indefeasible rights to be heard at the stage of bail application. He has further submitted that the present application may be allowed and the applicant may be ordered to be impleaded as party respondent no.2 in the bail application filed by the respondent no.2 and also the applicant may be allowed to file cross objections to the bail application filed by the respondent no.2 herein. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli appearing for the respondent no.2 has opposed the present application submitting that the respondent no.2 has filed an application seeking regular bail in an offence which is registered against him under the provisions of GUJCTOC Act. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli appearing for the respondent no.2 has opposed the present application submitting that the respondent no.2 has filed an application seeking regular bail in an offence which is registered against him under the provisions of GUJCTOC Act. The GUJCTOC Act is a Code in itself which does not give any right to the victim to oppose the bail application filed by the accused. None of the provisions of GUJCTOC Act mandates that the victim is required to be heard at the stage of bail application filed by the accused nor does it create any right in favour of the victim for the said purpose. The provisions of GUJCTOC Act has an overriding effect over the provisions of Cr.P.C./BNSS and therefore, the applicant herein cannot claim rights to be heard at the stage of bail application by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jagjeet (supra). He has further submitted that if the applicant herein is allowed to appear and oppose the bail application filed by the respondent no.2, it will open the floodgates for all the victims specifically in the offence registered against the provisions of GUJCTOC Act, which is not at all the intention of the legislature. He has further submitted that if the applicant is allowed to appear and oppose the bail application, there are all chances that he may raise irrelevant objections which would prolong the hearing of the bail application. At last, the applicant can be permitted to assist the Public Prosecutor. He has, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application. 4. Learned APP has supported the application. He has, therefore, submitted to pass an appropriate order in this application. 5. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The Criminal Misc. Application No.1342 2025 has been filed by the respondent no.2 under the provisions of Section 483 of BNSS for being enlarged on bail in an offence registered at Babra Police Station under the provisions of GUJCTOC Act. The respondent no.2 has been cited as a accused no.5 in the said F.I.R. There are three antecedents cited against the respondent no.2 in the F.I.R. in question for invoking the provisions of GUJCTOC Act. The respondent no.2 has been cited as a accused no.5 in the said F.I.R. There are three antecedents cited against the respondent no.2 in the F.I.R. in question for invoking the provisions of GUJCTOC Act. These three F.I.R.s have been registered against the respondent no.2 after the commencement of GUJCTOC Act and all these three F.I.R.s have been lodged by the personnel of EDF Company of which the present applicant is Managing Head. From the record it appears that the offences for which the aforesaid three F.I.R.s have been registered against the respondent no.2 were committed to prevent the Company and its personnel from carrying out its operation from the place. Thus, all the three F.I.R.s are the result of the dispute going on between the Company and the accused. The offences alleged against the respondent no.2 in these three F.I.R.s are serious in nature and the applicant being Managing Head of the Company has also been cited as a witness by the prosecution in the Charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Agency in those three offences. The record also indicates that the applicant himself has also suffered a murderous assault at the hands of accused persons including the present accused and therefore, the applicant herein can very well be termed as a victim of the offence. 7. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.2 has tried to canvas that the GUJCTOC Act being a special statute, the so called victim has no rights of raising any objections against the grant of bail to the accused. The arguments advanced by learned advocate for the applicant is not palatable as the victim would always be a victim of an offence under the IPC or a special enactment like GUJCTOC Act. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment rendered in the case of Jagjeet (supra) has observed in Para Nos.23 and 24 as under :- “23. A ‘victim’ within the meaning of Cr.P.C. cannot be asked to await the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings. He/She has a legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence. Such a ‘victim’ has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision. We may hasten to clarify that ‘victim’ and ‘complainant/informant’ are two distinct connotations in criminal jurisprudence. He/She has a legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence. Such a ‘victim’ has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision. We may hasten to clarify that ‘victim’ and ‘complainant/informant’ are two distinct connotations in criminal jurisprudence. It is not always necessary that the complainant/informant is also a ‘victim’, for even a stranger to the act of crime can be an ‘informant’, and similarly, a ‘victim’ need not be the complainant or informant of a felony. 24. The above stated enunciations are not to be conflated with certain statutory provisions, such as those present in Special Acts like the Scheduled Cast and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, where there is a legal obligation to hear the victim at the time of granting bail. Instead, what must be taken note of is that; First, the Indian jurisprudence is constantly evolving, whereby, the right of victims to be heard, especially in cases involving heinous crimes, is increasingly being acknowledged; Second, where the victims themselves have come forward to participate in a criminal proceeding, they must be accorded with an opportunity of a fair and effective hearing. If the right to file an appeal against acquittal, is not accompanied with the right to be heard at the time of deciding a bail application, the same may result in grave miscarriage of justice. Victims certainly cannot be expected to be sitting on the fence and watching the proceedings from afar, especially when they may have legitimate grievances. It is the solemn duty of a court to deliver justice before the memory of an injustice eclipses.” 9. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court has recognized the right of the victim to be heard at every stage of criminal proceedings under the Article - 21 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to the same, the present application is hereby allowed.