© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
STATING THAT a fresh bail plea filed by Gujarat Police constable Virendrasinh Padheriya, an accused in the murder case of 23-year-old MICA student Priyanshu Jain in a road rage incident in Ahmedabad in November last year, was an “abuse of the process of law”, the Gujarat High Court (HC) imposed cost on Padheriya and rejected his plea.
In an oral order of the Gujarat High Court, pronounced November 12 and made available Monday, Justice M R Mengdey rejected the plea and imposed a cost of Rs 5000 the accused constable, after hearing submissions from the senior advocate representing Padheriya as well as the public prosecutor Hardik Dave and Advocate Aditya Choksi, representing the victim’s family.
The court noted the submissions of the Senior Advocate J M Panchal, representing Padheriya, who had earlier withdrawn the bail application in July this year as the HC “was not inclined to grant bail”. Panchal submitted before the court that the accused now wished to appeal in the Supreme Court and therefore, wanted to have a detailed order of the HC in the fresh application.
The oral order of the court states, “…there is no change in the circumstances after the withdrawal of earlier application filed by the applicant… the present successive application is filed only with a view to invite a reasoned order from this Court to enable the applicant to approach the Hon’ble Apex Court against the said reasoned order… If the applicant was inclined to approach the Hon’ble Apex Court, nothing prevented him from inviting the reasons when the earlier bail application filed by the applicant was withdrawn.”
Rebuking the accused for “abusing the process of law”, the oral order states, “The fact that the applicant had withdrawn the earlier application shows that he was not inclined to invite reasons for rejection of his earlier bail application. However, thereafter, the applicant appears to have changed his mind and appears to have decided to approach the Hon’ble Apex court and to enable him to do so, the present application appears to have been filed. This is nothing but abuse of the process of law.”
The court order also noted the submissions of the public prosecutor, who objected to the bail plea. The order states, “… it is required to be noted that the applicant herein is a member of the Police Force of the State….It is sought to be contended on behalf of the applicant that at best, the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder can be said to have been committed by the applicant. The said submission does not appear to be correct at this stage, as from the facts emerging on record it appears that the applicant, after having been reprimanded by the deceased, followed him and thereafter, entered into a scuffle and had inflicted a knife blow on the vital part of the body of the deceased…”
The court order states that the material placed on record has indicated that the weapon had been discovered from the accused and during the FSL examination of the weapon, the blood group belonging to the deceased was found present on the weapon. The HC also noted that the trial in the case had commenced and witnesses were being examined. The HC said, “Having regard to these aspects, no case is made out for exercising the discretion in favour of the applicant and therefore, the application is dismissed with a cost of Rs 5000 to be deposited by the applicant with the State Legal Services Authority within a period of one week.”
According to the FIR filed in the case at Bopal station in November 2024 under Section 103(1) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, Jain and his batchmate – who is identified as the first informant in the court order – were on their way back from a cafe around 10:30 am when Jain had allegedly “reprimanded the applicant” for “driving his car in rash and negligent manner”, the court order notes. The court order further notes that the FIR states that the accused had then travelled some distance with his car, taken a U-turn and chased the two-wheeler of Jain and his friend. “They were intercepted by the present applicant… The applicant thereafter entered into a scuffle and verbal altercation with the deceased and took out a knife and inflicted a blow with the knife on the deceased.”
