Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To Assault Accused After Sessions Court Declined To Decide Plea On Merits Amid Alleged Influence By HC Staff

The Gujarat High Court granted to bail to two accused booked in an assault case, after noting that the sessions court had without going into merits rejected their bail plea amid allegations of attempt by certain members of high court staff to influence the proceedings.  [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 192]

Justice Hasmukh D Suthar noted that the FIR was registered against the applicants under Sections 323(voluntarily causing hurt), 324(voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 325(voluntarily causing grievous hurt), 504(Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and 114(Abettor present when offence is committed) IPC.

The court noted that at the stage of recording the further statements of the accused persons under the relevant provisions of law, the applicants remained absent before the Sessions Court.A non-bailable warrant was issued against them, and the applicants were taken into judicial custody on April 27. Thereafter, the applicants moved Sessions Court for regular bail.

The court noted that the bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court without examining the merits of the case, primarily on the ground that the Sessions Case, which is nearly ten years old, had reached the stage of recording the further statements of the accused. Further statements had since been recorded and the matter was kept for pronouncement of order on June 10.

The court noted that the Additional Sessions Judge had however observed that there were allegations that "certain members of the High Court staff might attempt to influence the proceedings", which if true, would amount to serious misconduct and could constitute contempt. The Judge had further recorded that she was unable to take any action or report the matter to the concerned authority of the High Court and expressed her inability to proceed in the matter under such circumstances. 

The court noted that the Sessions Judge also recorded that she had addressed a communication dated May 27 to Principal District Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur, seeking appropriate administrative guidance; since no response was received till June 16 and since the post of the Principal District Judge was lying vacant, the Sessions Judge found herself unable to keep the bail application pending indefinitely.

The court noted that the Sessions Judge observed that any further delay in deciding the application might invite allegations against her, and accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, she rejected the bail application.

"In the aforesaid background, this Court is of the view that the matter concerns the personal liberty of the applicants. Since the learned Sessions Judge has not adjudicated the bail application on its merits, this Court, being vested with concurrent jurisdiction, is competent to examine the request independently. Moreover, considering that the only allegation against the applicants is their failure to remain present before the learned Sessions Court for recording of their further statements which have now admittedly been recorded and further considering that the applicants had earlier been released on bail, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present application deserves to be allowed, subject to the imposition of stringent and appropriate conditions," the high court said. 

The court thus granted bail to the accused persons on them furnishing a personal bond of 25,000 each with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to certain conditions. 

Case title: MANUBHA @ VANRAJSINH BACHUBHA ZALA & ANR. v/s  STATE OF GUJARAT 

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 15095 of 2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 192