Gujarat High Court Grants Bail to Accused in Rape Case Due to Trial Delay and Complainant's Conduct. The court held that prolonged pre-trial detention without progress in trial violates the right to speedy trial under Section 483 BNSS.

High Court: Gujarat High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicant, Madhukant @ Madhu Rameshbhai Thadani, filed a successive regular bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with FIR No. 11213092240329 of 2024 registered with Atkot Police Station, Rajkot Rural, for offences under Sections 376(1), 376(2)(f), 376D, 354A, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant was arrested on 02.08.2024 and had been in custody since then. His earlier bail application was withdrawn on 05.02.2025. The trial had not progressed, and charges had not been framed. The applicant's counsel argued that the delay was due to the complainant's conduct, including addressing a communication to the Special Public Prosecutor asking him not to appear. The state opposed bail, citing the trial court's observation that the applicant had tried to approach the prosecutrix and there was apprehension of harm. The High Court, after hearing both sides, noted that the trial had not commenced and the applicant had been in custody for a considerable period. The court held that the applicant cannot be kept in custody indefinitely pending trial, especially when the delay was not attributable to him. The court granted bail subject to conditions, including furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000 and one surety, not tampering with evidence, not inducing witnesses, and not entering the village of the prosecutrix except for court attendance. The court also directed the trial court to expedite the trial and not be influenced by any observations made in the order.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Right to Speedy Trial - Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - The applicant sought bail on the ground that the trial had not progressed and charges had not been framed despite his long incarceration. The court considered the delay caused by the complainant's conduct in objecting to the Special Public Prosecutor. Held that the applicant cannot be kept in custody indefinitely pending trial, and bail was granted with conditions. (Paras 1-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the delay in trial and the conduct of the complainant.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of the like amount, subject to conditions including not tampering with evidence, not inducing witnesses, and not entering the village of the prosecutrix except for court attendance. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and not be influenced by any observations made in the order.

Law Points

  • Bail
  • Trial delay
  • Right to speedy trial
  • Section 483 BNSS
  • Section 439 CrPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (GUJ) (03) 1042

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 23675 of 2025

2026-03-13

M. R. Mengdey

2026:GUJHC:19246

Nirupam D Nanavati, Pratik Y Jasani, AJ Yagnik, Bomi H Sethna, Meet Thakkar

Madhukant @ Madhu Rameshbhai Thadani

State of Gujarat & Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal Misc. Application for successive regular bail after chargesheet

Remedy Sought

Enlargement on regular bail by the applicant

Filing Reason

The applicant sought bail due to delay in trial and his continued custody since 02.08.2024

Previous Decisions

Earlier bail application was withdrawn on 05.02.2025

Issues

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 BNSS given the delay in trial and the complainant's conduct.

Submissions/Arguments

Applicant's counsel argued that the trial has not progressed, charges not framed, and delay caused by complainant's objection to Special Public Prosecutor. State opposed bail citing trial court's observation that applicant tried to approach prosecutrix and apprehension of harm.

Ratio Decidendi

An accused cannot be kept in custody indefinitely pending trial, especially when the delay is not attributable to the accused. The right to speedy trial under Section 483 BNSS mandates that bail be considered when trial is delayed.

Judgment Excerpts

The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail... He submitted that the applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 02.08.2024 and since then he is in custody. The trial of the offence has not progressed at all after the earlier bail application filed by the applicant was withdrawn vide order dated 05.02.2025 and even the charges have not been framed against the accused. The complainant wants the trial to be delayed on any count. The applicant cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period pending trial.

Procedural History

FIR registered in 2024; applicant arrested on 02.08.2024; earlier bail application withdrawn on 05.02.2025; present successive bail application filed under Section 483 BNSS; heard and decided on 13.03.2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: 483
  • Indian Penal Code: 376(1), 376(2)(f), 376D, 354A, 504, 506
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Grants Bail to Accused in Rape Case Due to Trial Delay and Complainant's Conduct. The court held that prolonged pre-trial detention without progress in trial violates the right to speedy trial under Section 483 BNSS.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Appellants in Gang Rape Case Due to Inconsistent Testimony and Lack of Corroboration. Conviction under Section 376(2)(g) IPC Set Aside as Prosecution Failed to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt.