Gujarat High Court Denies Bail to Ahmedabad Murder Accused, Cites 15 Injuries and CCTV Evidence
Summarized by AI; it may make mistakes. Check important info
Summarized by AI; it may make mistakes. Check important info
The Gujarat High Court has rejected the bail applications filed by Anish Parmar, an accused in a murder case in Ahmedabad's Sola area, citing the gravity of the offence, the severity of the possible punishment and prima facie evidence linking him to the crime.
The case relates to an alleged murder following a dispute over drinking water on June 7, 2026. According to the prosecution, the altercation began after the deceased allegedly threw a stone at the father of co-accused Jitendra Rathva.
The prosecution claimed that, harbouring a grudge, the accused, along with a juvenile in conflict with the law, conspired to kidnap and assault the victim.
The victim was allegedly attacked with a plastic pipe, wooden sticks, a lathi and a sledgehammer. The post-mortem report recorded 15 injuries and attributed the death to shock and haemorrhage.
Defence Claims False Implication, Cites Juvenile's Bail
Opposing the bail applications, the defence argued that the accused had been falsely implicated through general and omnibus allegations.
The counsel submitted that no specific overt acts had been established against the applicants and pointed out that a juvenile co-accused facing similar allegations had already been granted bail.
The defence relied on the principle of parity, arguing that the applicants should also receive bail.
State Cites Eyewitnesses and CCTV Footage
The state strongly opposed the pleas, placing before the court statements from three eyewitnesses and CCTV footage that allegedly showed the accused carrying pipes.
The prosecution also relied on Section 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), concerning joint presence and abetment, in support of its case.
The High Court rejected the defence's parity argument, observing that the role attributed to the juvenile co-accused was distinguishable from that of the applicants.
Court Flags Risk of Witness or Evidence Tampering
While dismissing the bail applications, the High Court observed that denying bail in such cases serves a preventive purpose rather than being punitive.
The court also noted a tangible risk of evidence or witness tampering, alongside the seriousness of the allegations and the prima facie material placed before it.
The High Court consequently refused to grant bail to Parmar and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
