Kiran Raj

The Gujarat High Court, while adjudicating Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 2152 of 2024, ordered the suspension of the sentence and granted regular bail to three police officers convicted for the murder of an 18-year-old boy belonging to a Scheduled Caste. The boy had been in an observation home under police custody in 2020. The Division Bench comprising Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice S. V. Pinto allowed the application after examining the evidence and circumstances of the case.

The convicted police officers were sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, under Sections 302 (Murder) read with 114 (Abetment) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. According to the complainant, the father of the deceased, the boy was apprehended in connection with a theft and placed in an observation home after absconding on February 3, 2020. He alleged that the police officers physically assaulted his son with sticks and kicks on the second floor of the observation home, leading to serious injuries and death.

The complainant claimed that he was informed on February 12, 2020, that his son had been arrested, and the next day he was informed of his death. Upon seeing the body in the hospital, the complainant alleged signs of physical and mental torture by the accused officers.

The Court reviewed the medical evidence, including the postmortem report prepared by the Medical Officer. The medical findings revealed that the injuries sustained by the deceased were simple in nature and not sufficient to cause death. The officer conducting the postmortem admitted during cross-examination that the injuries were superficial and did not opine whether they directly caused death.

The Bench stated: “Considering the entire evidence of the prosecution, we find that the arguments of the learned advocate for the applicants deserve consideration, and we are persuaded to exercise discretion in favor of the applicants for the purpose of substantive order of sentence.”

The counsel for the applicants argued that:

• The case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and lacked direct proof of their involvement.

• The injuries cited in the postmortem report were minor and could not be attributed as the cause of death.

• The deceased’s identification of the accused was speculative and based on assumptions.

• The deceased had absconded from the Zonal Safety Home and sustained injuries during recapture, which would fall under less severe sections such as Section 324 or Section 330 of the IPC.

• The applicants had been in custody for over four years and seven months, with no imminent prospects of the appeal being heard due to the backlog of cases.

The counsel for the State strongly opposed the suspension of the sentence, arguing that the trial court had rightfully convicted the applicants based on the gravity of the offence and the evidence presented. It was urged that the bail application be dismissed.

After evaluating the submissions and evidence, the Court observed:

• The case relied on circumstantial evidence, and the prosecution had not conclusively established the applicants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• The medical evidence did not indicate that the injuries were sufficient to cause death.

• Considering the prolonged incarceration of the applicants and the backlog of appeals, the Court found it appropriate to suspend the sentence and grant bail.

The Bench observed: “Having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the backlog of appeals pending before this Court, the chance of the appeal being heard in the near future is extremely remote. Considering the role attributed to the applicants and the evidence against them, this is a fit case to suspend the sentence imposed upon the applicants and enlarge them on bail pending the Criminal Appeal.”

The applicants were ordered to be released on furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with like sureties, subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicants shall not misuse their liberty or take undue advantage of bail.

2. They shall not leave India without prior permission from the Court.

3. They shall provide their current residential address at the time of bond execution and seek permission before any change in residence.

4. They shall maintain public order and refrain from activities breaching peace.

5. They shall deposit any unpaid fines prior to release.

The application was disposed of, permitting direct service of the order.

Case Title: Vishnukumar Laxmanbhai Prajapati & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Application No. 2 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 2152 of 2024
Bench: Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice S. V. Pinto

[View/Download order]