Rushil Chuninal Vora vs State Of Gujarat

Case: Rushil Chuninal Vora vs State Of Gujarat

By: Arman Singh Parihar, pursuing BA LL.B from (Jiwaji University Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh)


The One seeking for anticipant bail  indicted without proper  disquisition could be problematic.  In considering bail for the  indicted, it’s important to  concentrate on their  part in the  contended crime .However, before a thorough  disquisition is conducted, it could  shoot the wrong communication to the public and  hamper the  disquisition, If bail is granted too beforehand. This could also lead to tampering with  substantiation. thus, it’s  pivotal to prioritize the integrity of the  disquisition and maintain public confidence in the legal system.  In light of the  soberness of the allegations and the ongoing  disquisition, it’s important to allow the  probing agency the necessary freedom to conduct their work effectively. Granting  anticipant bail to the complainant could  intrude with this  disquisition process. thus, the complainant isn’t entitled to  anticipant bail to avoid implicit  interference to the  disquisition.  

Data Of The Case

Hriday Buch, representing the aspirant, argues that their  customer is innocent and falsely  indicted in the case. They claim the aspirant had no active involvement in the  contended offense and has no  previous felonious record. They also point out that aco-accused with a  analogous  part has been granted bail, suggesting the  aspirant should admit  analogous treatment for the sake of fairness. They assure that the  aspirant will cooperate with the  disquisition and won’t  shirk justice.   still, the state prosecutor, Mr. Hardik Mehta, opposes granting  anticipant bail. He alleges that the  aspirant played an active  part in the offense,  soliciting the plaintiff to invest in their business and  entering a substantial  quantum of  plutocrat. The prosecutor claims the  aspirant  intrigued with others to commit the crime and has been  escaping authorities since the offense was reported. Due to the  soberness of the allegations and the  aspirant’s conduct, the prosecutor argues against granting bail.”  


  1- The entitlement of   anticipant bail in light of the soberness of the offense and the need for a fair disquisition. It emphasizes the delicate balance between guarding individual rights and icing justice for society. 

  2- The courts must precisely weigh factors similar as the  graveness of the offense, impact on society, and the need for a free  disquisition before granting  anticipant bail.   

 3- The discretion of the court in each case is vital to achieving a just  outgrowth. also, it mentions specific cases where the Supreme Court has outlined parameters for granting  anticipant bail and stressed the need for exceptional circumstances to  leave  similar relief.   

Law applicable 

 * Section 438 of CRPC   

Which states that ” 

Direction for  entitlement of bail to person arresting arrest.   1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an blameworthiness of having committed anon-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of  similar arrest, he shall be released on bail. 

  2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section( 1), it may include  similar conditions in  similar directions in the light of the data of the particular case, as it may  suppose fit, including-  

 a) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when needed.   

b) a condition that the person shall not, directly or laterally, make any persuading, trouble o  pledge to any person acquainted with the data of the case so as to  inhibit him from  telling  similar data to the Court or to any police officer; 

  c) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the former authorization of the Court;   

d)  similar other condition as may be assessed under sub-section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section.  

 3) If  similar person is  later arrested without  leave by an officer in charge of a police station on  similar blameworthiness, and is  set either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the  guardianship of  similar officer to give bail, he shall be released on bail; and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of  similar offence decides that a  leave should issue in the first case against that person, he shall issue a bailable  leave in conformity with the direction of the Court under sub-section( 1).  

 4) Nothing in this section shall be supposed to affect the special powers of the High Court regarding bail under section 439.   

5) The vittles of this section shall not apply to any case involving the arrest of any person on the blameworthiness of having committed an offence under section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376D or section 376DA of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”

Court Held

Arguments made by the counsel for the original complainant regarding the alleged offense. The complainant’s counsel contends that the applicant, along with their sister and brother-in-law, engaged in a conspiracy to deceive the complainant, promising significant returns on investment in a business venture. 

The applicant allegedly obtained a large sum of money from the complainant under false pretences. The complainant’s counsel asserts that custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary due to the seriousness of the offense, which involves white-collar crime and significant financial loss. 

The court, after reviewing the evidence, concludes that custodial interrogation is warranted given the nature of the offense and the applicant’s alleged involvement in the conspiracy. The court also addresses the concept of anticipatory bail, emphasizing that it is not a guarantee against trial or protection from serious accusations.

And it states that, despite similarities to the co-accused, the applicant is not entitled to the same treatment. The applicant faces serious charges of criminal conspiracy and has allegedly played an active role.

Additionally, the applicant has been evading authorities and changing addresses, indicating a potential attempt to avoid prosecution. 

Granting anticipatory bail to the applicant could hinder the investigation and allow for tampering with evidence and witnesses. Considering the nature of the offense, the applicant’s involvement, and the risk of interference with the investigation, the court decides to dismiss the application for anticipatory bail.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *