DATE: 22/12/2025
COURT: High Court of Gujarat
BENCH: Justice Nikhil S. Kariel
FACTS:
The applicant, a 23-year-old student, was
arrested on 14 March 2025 in connection with an FIR (C.R. No.
11196027250115/2025) registered at Karelibaug Police Station, Vadodara City. He
was accused of rash and negligent driving under the influence of THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol)
and Codeine, causing a multi-vehicle collision that resulted in the death of
one person, injuries to nine others, and damage to three vehicles. The offences
charged include Sections 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 281 (rash
driving), 125(a) and (b) (endangering life), 324(5) (causing hurt by dangerous
means), and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Sections 134,
177, 184, and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. A separate offence under Section
27(A) of the NDPS Act was also registered based on allegations of drug
influence. The charge-sheet was filed on 10 June 2025, and the applicant had
been in custody for approximately nine months at the time of the bail
application.
The applicant filed Criminal Misc. Application
No. 25287 of 2025 under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 seeking regular bail. The prosecution and the original complainant
strongly opposed the application, highlighting the seriousness of the offence,
the loss of life, multiple injuries, and the applicant's alleged conduct after
the accident. The applicant had no significant prior antecedents except two
minor references noted by the court.
ISSUES:
The primary issue was whether the
applicant, accused of causing death and injuries through alleged drug-impaired
rash driving, should be granted regular bail after remaining in custody for
nine months, particularly when the charge-sheet had already been filed and the
trial was yet to commence. Subsidiary considerations included balancing the
gravity of the offence and public apprehension against factors such as the
applicant's young age, student status, lack of serious criminal antecedents,
and the principle that prolonged pre-trial detention should not be punitive.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Gujarat High Court allowed the
application on 22 December 2025, granting regular bail to the applicant on
execution of a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety of the same
amount, subject to stringent conditions including restrictions on leaving
Gujarat, fortnightly police reporting for six months, surrender of passport,
and prohibitions against tampering with evidence or misusing liberty. Rule was
made absolute, with direct service permitted.
The court acknowledged the seriousness of
the allegations culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 105
BNS, multiple injuries, and driving under the influence of prohibited
substances, while noting the applicant's alleged utterances post-accident and
the NDPS offence. However, it weighed these against mitigating factors: the
applicant was a 23-year-old student with no substantial criminal history, had
been in custody since March 2025 (nine months), and the charge-sheet was
already filed on 10 June 2025, indicating that further incarceration served no
investigative purpose. Relying on the Supreme Court's guidance in Sanjay
Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 that bail is the rule and jail the exception,
and prolonged detention pending trial should not become punitive, the court
found that prima facie discretion favoured release, provided adequate
safeguards addressed prosecution and public concerns.
To allay apprehensions raised by the
Additional Public Prosecutor and the complainant's advocate, the court imposed
rigorous conditions, including restricted movement, regular police presence,
and immediate bond execution before the trial court. It emphasised that these
measures would prevent misuse of liberty while ensuring the applicant's
availability for trial. The decision was explicitly preliminary, without
detailed discussion of evidence, and the trial court was directed not to be
influenced by these observations. By prioritising personal liberty
post-charge-sheet in a case involving a young first-time offender (barring
minor antecedents), the court struck a balance between societal interest in
justice for victims and constitutional protections against unnecessary
pre-trial detention.
ANALYSIS:
The Gujarat High Court's decision to grant
regular bail to a 23-year-old student accused of drug-impaired rash driving
causing one death and injuries to nine persons exemplifies the judiciary's
consistent adherence to the principle that "bail is the rule and jail is
the exception," even in cases involving grave allegations under Section
105 BNS (equivalent to culpable homicide not amounting to murder). Despite
strong opposition from the prosecution and the complainant, and notwithstanding
the additional NDPS angle suggesting influence of THC and Codeine, the court
prioritised mitigating factors: the applicant's young age, student status,
absence of serious criminal antecedents, completion of investigation
(charge-sheet filed after about three months), and nine months of pre-trial
custody. By invoking Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012), the single judge emphasised
that continued detention post-charge-sheet serves no purpose beyond punishment,
which is impermissible before conviction, thereby preventing the bail process
from becoming an indirect penalty.
The imposition of stringent conditionsm, high
bail amount (Rs.1
lakh), passport surrender, prohibition on leaving Gujarat, and mandatory
fortnightly (later monthly) police reporting for six
months reflects a careful calibration to address public safety concerns and
victim apprehensions while safeguarding the accused's Article 21 rights. This
approach underscores a pragmatic judicial trend in road accident cases
involving young offenders: courts increasingly lean towards conditional release
once investigation concludes, recognising that trial delays (often prolonged) should
not translate into de facto punishment. The judgment reinforces that
seriousness of allegations alone cannot perpetually deny liberty, provided
safeguards mitigate risks of absconding or tampering. Overall, it strikes a
balanced equilibrium between accountability for reckless conduct endangering
lives and the presumption of innocence, offering a measured precedent for
similar bail applications in fatal rash-driving cases under the new Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita framework.
info@adhwaitha.com