Sessions Court 'Prima Facie' Exceeded Bail Jurisdiction By Directing Executive Action On Alleged Land Grabbing, Mob Violence: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has summoned the Law Officers branch, observing that the sessions court had "prima facie exceeded its jurisdiction" under S.483 BNSS which relates to bail, by referring its order to various state authorities for implementation of Supreme Court's directions in mob lynching cases. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 186]

Notably the sessions court had denied bail to three accused of assaulting forest and police personnel, observing that it was a land grabbing offence and the District Magistrate needs to take appropriate action.

Noting that "prima facie exceeding of jurisdiction" by the Sessions Court under Section 483 BNSS "ought not to be overlooked" by the High Court, it thus asked the Law Officers branch to remain present through its advocate on the next date of hearing. 

For context, Section 483 BNSS grants special powers to the High Court and Sessions Court regarding bail.

Justice Nikhil S Kariel in his order said:

"This Court while has released the applicants on regular bail, has noticed a very disturbing aspect inasmuch as vide order dated 08.05.2026, the learned In-charge Sessions Judge, Banaskantha while rejecting the bail application of the present applicants amongst others, has passed certain scathing observations against the present applicants which appear to be in the teeth of the observations of this Court vide order dated 27.04.2026 in Criminal Misc. Application No.7656/2026. It also appears that the said order had been placed before the learned Sessions Court and whereas, the learned Sessions Court was well aware about the observations of this Court.

It also appears that the learned Sessions Court had well exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the BNSS while directing that the order be placed before the District Magistrate as well as the Principal Secretary, GAD, Chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat and “Higher Ups” of the Police Department for necessary implementation of the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court qua mob violence and mob lynching in case of one Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India reported in 2018 (10) SCC 713 and Tehseen Poonwalla vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2018 SC 3354. Learned Sessions Court has also prima facie observed that the offence committed by the present applicants is nothing but an offence of land grabbing and the District Magistrate needs to take appropriate action thereupon"

At this stage, the counsel for the applicants and the State drew the court's attention to coordinate bench's June 17 order staying the sessions court order.

The coordinate bench decision came in applications moved by the applicant against the sessions court's order directing forwarding of its order to the authorities.

The State's counsel submitted that since the coordinate bench has been approached the court may not pass any orders against the sessions court's order.

The Court however said:

"...to this Court, when the order in question is before this Court more particularly the same being under challenge before this Court, the prima facie exceeding of jurisdiction by the learned Incharge Sessions Court could not be and ought not to be overlooked by this Court. Hence, at this stage, let a copy of the present applications be forwarded to the Law Officers Branch and whereas, on the next date i.e. on 28.07.2026, the Law Officers Branch shall remain present through a learned advocate as regards the observations of this Court above".

The applicants were accused of assaulting forest officials and police officials when they were discharging their duties and had caused the latter serious injuries.

The role attributed to one of the applicants was of being the prime conspirator and who was alleged armed with an axe/sharp edged weapon; the allegation against another applicant was that he was present during the confrontation and armed with a stick and the allegation against the third applicant was that he was armed with a wooden log.

"This Court has considered the fact that there is no material against the present applicants except a video recording of the alleged incident, the same is neither part of the charge-sheet nor does it appear that the applicants were part thereof...It also appears that the present applicants have been implicated based upon self-implicatory statement by the applicants themselves. This Court has also considered the fact that a learned Coordinate Bench vide an order dated 17.06.2026 in Criminal Misc. Application No.12583/2026 had been pleased to enlarge a co-accused having similar role. Having regard to the above aspects, this Court is inclined to grant these applications," the court said.

The court granted the three applicants bail on executing a bond of Rs.10,000 each with one surety of the like amount and subject to certain conditions. 

Case title: SATRABHAI RAMABHAI DAMOR v/s STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 12593 of 2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 186