'Very Sorry State Of Affairs': Gujarat High Court Laments IOs' Absence With Case Papers, Failure To Properly Assist State Counsel
The Gujarat High Court has lamented the absence of Investigating Officers with investigation papers of the concerned matter as well as failure in giving proper instructions to the State's counsel to assist the court. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 249]
Granting regular bail to a man booked in a murder case, the court further observed that if where IO is present they do not have knowledge about the investigation and look to the assistance by his constable.
At the outset, Justice Hasmukh D Suthar in his order noted that though the matter has been listed time and again, on earlier occasions, an opportunity was granted to the State to explain the material and evidence collected by the concerned Investigating Officer showing the involvement of the accused.
The court had directed the IO to remain personally present before the Court to assist the Assistant Public Prosecutor properly and the Court, regarding the nature of evidence and material collected against the accused in connection with the alleged offence.
"Today, when the matter is listed for the third time, the IO has remained absent. It is submitted on behalf of the State that the concerned IO has been transferred. It is pertinent to note that, on the earlier occasion also, time was sought on the very same ground. Today, only a constable has remained present, who is unable to properly assist the learned APP or apprise the Court regarding the material and evidence collected during the course of investigation as only he is a messenger and not conversant with investigation papers..."
The accused argued that he has been added as an accused solely based on his confession statement and there was no incriminating material against him produced on record. When the court posed a specific query put to the APP to explain the circumstances and the material on the basis of which the applicant has been arraigned as an accused, the prosecution failed to point out any incriminating material or circumstance connecting the applicant with the alleged offence.
The court thus said:
"It is very sorry state of affairs in number of matters, concerned investigating officers failed to remain present with investigation papers and properly give instructions to learned APP and assist the Court and if in some cases, investigating officer remain present, though they do not have knowledge about the investigation and always they look forward assistance of his writer/constable"
When a specific query was put to the APP regarding the involvement of the applicant in the last seen together in company of deceased theory, particularly as the allegations for the offences under Sections 302, 328, 201, 120B and 34 of the IPC relating to murder, conspiracy and common intention, the prosecution has failed to point out any material showing conspiracy of common intention of the applicant to show that the deceased was lastly seen in company of accused, the court said.
The court said that the call detail record location are subsequent in point of time but qua actual commission of alleged offence of murder, prosecution is silent.
"As per the allegations, the applicant had used sodium powder and administered it to the deceased, thereafter chopped the dead body with a sharp-edged weapon and buried the same. The statement of one JCB driver has also been recorded in this regard. However, the prosecution has failed to point out what evidence has been collected to show the involvement of the present applicant in the actual commission of the offence which may be considered qua recovery of dead body...Considering the aforesaid facts, mere motive or an allegation regarding an illicit relationship, by itself, cannot be sufficient to connect the applicant with such a serious offence. Though the alleged offences are serious and punishable with life imprisonment or death, the material against the applicant cannot be accepted in such a casual and perfunctory manner. The applicant cannot be deprived of his personal liberty on the basis of a shoddy investigation and improper assistance to the Court," the court said.
The court noted that while the prosecution has cited 74 witnesses, but till date not a single witness has been examined by prosecution. The court thus said that it appeared that prosecution "is not interested" in proceeding with the matter and once prosecution is not inclined in expeditious disposal of the trial, prosecution has no right to oppose the bail application on merits considering the fundamental right of the accused.
The court thus granted the applicant bail subject to certain conditions.
Case title: JIGARBHAI BHANUBHAI GOHIL v/s STATE OF GUJARAT
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 15268 of 2026
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 249