Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Gujarat Land Dispute Murder Case: A Detailed Analysis
The Supreme Court of India recently set aside the Gujarat High Court’s orders granting bail to six accused individuals in a multiple-murder case arising from a violent land dispute. The case involved five homicidal deaths, and the bail granted by the High Court was challenged by the prosecution, leading to a detailed Supreme Court ruling analyzing the legal and factual issues surrounding the grant of bail.
Background of the Case
The case originates from an incident on May 9, 2020, in Hamirpur, Gujarat. According to the FIR, a violent altercation broke out between two groups over a longstanding land dispute, leading to the murder of five individuals. The appellant, Ramesh Bhavan Rathod, filed the complaint, naming multiple individuals as accused. Among them were Vishan Heera Koli (A-6), Pravin Heera Koli (A-10), Sidhdhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela (A-13), Kheta Parbat Koli (A-15), Vanraj Karshan Koli (A-16), and Dinesh Karshan Akhiyani (Koli) (A-17).
Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/mukhtar-ansaris-custody-supreme-court-orders-transfer-to-uttar-pradesh/
According to the FIR, the informant and his companions were returning from their fields when their vehicle was ambushed by the accused, who were armed with firearms, dhariyas (bladed weapons), and sticks. The attack resulted in five fatalities. A counter-FIR was later filed on May 13, 2020, by one of the accused, Vishan Heera Koli, claiming that the incident was a result of a free fight between the two groups.
High Court’s Bail Orders and Grounds for Appeal
The Gujarat High Court granted bail to the accused on different dates between October 2020 and January 2021. The bail orders were based on the principle of parity, meaning that if one accused had been granted bail, others with similar allegations were entitled to the same relief. However, the prosecution challenged these bail orders, arguing that the High Court had ignored the severity of the offense and failed to consider the specific roles of the accused.
The informant, Ramesh Bhavan Rathod, appealed against these bail orders, asserting that:
- The accused were directly involved in a premeditated attack.
- The gravity of the offense (murder of five people) warranted a stricter approach.
- The High Court granted bail without considering the criminal antecedents of the accused.
- The cross-FIR itself confirmed the presence and active participation of the accused.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment
The Supreme Court analyzed the High Court’s reasoning and found serious flaws in the bail orders. The Court held that the High Court had overlooked crucial aspects, including:
- The gravity of the offense: The case involved multiple murders, which required a higher threshold for bail.
- The criminal antecedents of the accused: Some of the accused had previous criminal records, which the High Court ignored.
- The principle of parity was misapplied: The High Court granted bail to multiple accused based on one initial bail order without assessing individual roles.
- Failure to consider the cross-FIR: The cross-FIR lodged by one of the accused confirmed premeditation and the presence of the accused at the crime scene.
Key Arguments Presented by the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued:
“The cross-FIR lodged by Vishan (A-6) on 13 May 2020 indicates that an incident had taken place on 9 May 2020. During the course of the incident, five homicidal deaths resulted on the side of the informant. The presence of the accused, the premeditation on their part, and the assault committed on persons belonging to the side of the informant should be sufficient to deny bail.”
Key Arguments by the Respondent
The accused argued that the prosecution’s case was inconsistent. The counsel for the accused stated:
“The FIR which arises out of the incident of 9 May 2020 implicates as many as 22 persons. A charge sheet has been submitted after investigation, and the nature of the incident, as narrated in the FIR registered on 9 May 2020, has been substantially altered in the subsequent statement of the informant recorded on 3 June 2020.”
Supreme Court’s Final Verdict
The Supreme Court found the High Court’s bail orders to be legally unsound and ordered their cancellation. The Court stated:
“The orders passed by the High Court fail to pass muster under the law. They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged offenses and to the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction.”
As a result, the Supreme Court directed the accused to surrender immediately.
Legal Implications of the Judgment
This ruling reinforces the necessity for courts to consider the gravity of the offense before granting bail. It also highlights the importance of examining individual roles in crimes rather than granting bail based purely on parity.
The judgment serves as a precedent for future cases involving serious offenses and bail considerations. It ensures that lower courts exercise due diligence in evaluating the merits of bail applications, particularly in cases involving grave charges like murder.
Petitioner Name: Ramesh Bhavan Rathod.Respondent Name: Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) & Anr..Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice M R Shah.Place Of Incident: Hamirpur, Gujarat.Judgment Date: 20-04-2021.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: ramesh-bhavan-rathod-vs-vishanbhai-hirabhai-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-20-04-2021.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments
See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
