Appointments & TransfersNews

High Court of Gujarat in a Full Court meeting on 13-08-2019, has designated 12 Advocates as Senior Advocates, which are as follows:

  • Devang Sudhir Nanavati 
  • Mitesh Ramanbhai Amin
  • Satyajeet Atul Desai
  • Jal Soli Unwalla
  • Asim Jayantbhai Pandya
  • Hasmukh Mohanlal Parikh
  • Bharatkumar Shanubhai Patel
  • Iqbal Hasanali Syed
  • Maulin Ramesh Raval
  • Gautam Mansukh Joshi
  • Mahendrakumar Babubhai Gandhi
  • Tushar Pramodchandra Hemani

[Notification by High Court of Gujarat]

Dated: 13-08-2019

Appointments & TransfersNews

The President in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, appointed  S/Shri Justices (i) KaushaJ Jayendra Thaker, (ii) Ratilal Parshottarnbhai Dholaria, (iii) Ashutosh Jayantilal Shastri, (iv) Siren Aniruddh Vaishnav, (v) Alpesh Yeshvant Kogje, (vi) Arvindsingh Ishwarsingh Supehia, and (vii) Bipinkumar Navalchandbhai Karia, Additional Judges of the Gujarat High Court, to be Judges of the Gujarat High Court with effect from the date they assume  charge of their offices.

Ministry of Law and Justice

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: Hearing upon the applications filed by Patidar Anamat Andolan Samiti’s (PAAS) firebrand leader and convener Hardik Patel, who was charged with sedition, the bench of A.J. Desai, J., granted him bail along with certain conditions wherein Patel will have to refrain from taking undue advantage of the liberty provided to him. The Court further directed Patel to issue a declaration that he is ready to remain outside the territorial limits of the State of Gujarat for a period of six months from the date of his release.

The present case is a result of the statewide unrest that prevailed in the State of Gujarat last year where there was an agitation led by the leaders of PAAS demanding reservations in government jobs and educational institutions for the Patidar community under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category. As per the contentions of Zubin Bharda representing Hardik Patel, the prosecution has vehemently tried to portray that Patel is the one who is solely responsible for the violence that spread in the aftermath of the rallies that were held in the support of the cause championed by PAAS. It was further argued that grave charges were leveled against the applicant under Section 121 of IPC, as if his demand for reservation was akin to waging war against the State. The contentions were opposed by the Public Prosecutor, Mitesh Amin, who stated that the applicant had used the wide array of social networking sites and internet applications such as ‘watsapp’ to mobilize the members of Patidar community and thereby had conspired to overawe the State Government.

Perusing the contentions of the parties and referring to landmark decisions on sedition, the Court observed that the applicant and his association namely PAAS had called on the members of Patidar community to the various rallies that furthered their cause of attaining reservation under the OBC category. The Court also studied the speeches and the interviews given by the applicant and observed that along with the applicant, several other members of the Patidar community were interested in getting reservation. Therefore the applicant alone cannot be kept behind the bars when other leaders of the agitation have been already granted bail. Considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in respect to Section 439 of the CrPC, the Court decided to grant bail to the applicant but with certain mandatory conditions. [Hardik Bharatbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2016 SCC OnLine Guj 824, decided on 08.07.2016]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: Adjourning the court till 25th July, 2016 and issuing notice to the respondents, the 2 Judges Bench of Harsha Devani and Biren Vaishnav, JJ charged all seven accused in the 2002 post–Godhara riots case for the offence of murder.

The Court maintained the part of the judgment of the trial court for acquitting Devabhai Samatbhai Bharwad and set aside the part of the judgment of  the trial court for the accused Satabhai alias Haider Gela Bharwad, Naranbhai Samantbhai Bharwad and Udaji Ranchhodbhai Thakor and convicted them for the offence punishable under sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 325 and 326 read with section 149 of the Penal Code. For the conviction of Valabhai Gelabhai Bharwad, the Court held him guilty under Section 302, 307, 323, 324 and 325 read with section 149 of the Penal Code. The court also convicted Viththal alias Kuchiyo Moti Bharwad for the offence under sections 302, 324, 325 and 326 read with section 149 of the Penal Code; Mulabhai Gelabhai Bharwad under sections 302, 307, 323 and 325 read with section 149 of the Penal Code and Merabhai Gelabhai Bharwad under section 302, 307, 323, 324 and 326 read with section 149 of the Penal Code, hence calling the accused for questioning on the next hearing. [Valabhai Gelabhai Bharwad & 2 v. State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No. 1144 of 2011 With Criminal Appeal No. 1203 of 2011 With Criminal Appeal No. 1204 of 2011 With Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2012, as on 27th June, 2016]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: Considering the fragile physical and mental health of the minor rape victim (‘Petitioner’), the Court allowed the Petitioner to terminate her pregnancy after 22 weeks of pregnancy as an exception to the provision of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. The Court said that the continuance of her pregnancy can cause grave injury to her mental health.

The Court followed the reasoning in Bhavakiben v. State of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 1155 of 2016, wherein the ‘best interest’ of the victim was to be the parameter, necessitating careful enquiry into medical opinion on the feasibility of the pregnancy as well as the social repercussions. In the present case, the victim suffered from fragile health and severe anemia, at gestation of 22 weeks and 3 days. Learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval while relying upon some of the judgments delivered by this Court and submitted that the Court may direct for termination of pregnancy, if deems fit, considering the mental health and overall picture. The Court allowed the prosecutrix-petitioner and her parents the right to determine the further course of action with the advice of the Senior Expert Doctor (PDU, Government Medical College, Rajkot) and directed the medical team to conduct all the required tests including haemoglobin test and to report her status to the Court in a week’s time before proceeding to terminate her pregnancy. Further, the Medical Superintendent, PDU Civil Hospital Rajkot directed to hand over tissues from the foetus to the Police Inspector at the Mahila Police Station in Rajkot, for transmission to the Forensic Science Laboratory. [Madhuben Arvindbhai Nimavat v. State of Gujarat, 2016 SCC OnLine Guj 662, decided 08.06.2016]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court– Allowing a plea by applicants to undergo lie detector test or narco analysis test, G.B. Shah J, agreed with view of the trial Court that narco analysis test is always to be in the aid of investigation and cannot be accepted as an evidence of a particular fact, but modified the impugned order stating that the particular fact or any fact comes after the said test is carried out by the concerned authority after following due procedure.

S.K. Bagga, learned advocate for the applicants submitted that no specific finding has been given for not allowing the narco analysis test/lie detector test and placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Purshottam Swaroopchand Soni v. State of Gujarat, 2007(3) GLR 2088 wherein the Court observed ‘in a matter where it is the case of the accused that he is falsely involved, he should be permitted to give evidence in any form whether it be in the form of oral deposition before the Court or in the form of scientific nature like that of Brain-mapping test’. After careful perusal of the submissions and the observations the Court observed that it can be concluded from the impugned order that the learned trial Judge has observed to the effect that lie detector test or Narco analysis test is always to be in the aid of investigation and cannot be accepted as an evidence of a particular fact. There is no dispute as to this observation but the particular fact or any fact comes after the said test is carried out by the concerned authority after following due procedure. Under the circumstances, keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court the present Criminal Revision Application deserves to be partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial court requires to be modified. [Vinodbhai Gagandas Vanjani v. State Of Gujarat, 2016 SCC OnLine Guj 302, decided on 3.05.2016]