Introduction:

In a significant order balancing personal liberty with the seriousness of criminal allegations, the Gujarat High Court granted regular bail to a 23-year-old student accused in the Vadodara car crash case that resulted in the death of one person and injuries to nine others. The order was passed by Justice Nikhil S. Kariel in Rakshit Ravish Chorasiya v. State of Gujarat, R/Criminal Misc. Application (For Regular Bail – After Chargesheet) No. 25287 of 2025. The applicant had been in judicial custody since 14 March 2025 following allegations of rash and dangerous driving leading to a multi-vehicle collision. The prosecution invoked serious penal provisions including Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), along with offences under the Motor Vehicles Act and allegations of driving under the influence of narcotic substances. While acknowledging the gravity of the offence and the tragic consequences of the accident, the High Court emphasized that pre-trial incarceration cannot become punitive, particularly once investigation is complete and the chargesheet has been filed. The Court ultimately exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under criminal law to enlarge the applicant on bail, subject to stringent conditions, while carefully clarifying that its observations were strictly limited to the bail stage.

Arguments on Behalf of the Applicant:

The counsel appearing for the applicant strongly urged the Court to consider the bail plea in light of settled principles governing personal liberty and pre-trial detention. It was argued that the applicant is a 23-year-old student, with no criminal antecedents except the cases arising out of the present incident, and that he has already undergone nearly nine months of incarceration. The defence emphasized that the investigation had been completed and the chargesheet was filed on 10 June 2025, and therefore no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant behind bars for an indefinite period. It was contended that continued detention would amount to punishment before conviction, which is impermissible under criminal jurisprudence. The counsel submitted that although the allegations are serious, the role attributed to the applicant would ultimately be a matter of trial and evidence, and at the stage of bail, a detailed examination of evidence is neither warranted nor desirable. It was further argued that the offence under Section 105 of the BNS, while grave, does not automatically justify denial of bail, particularly when the accused is not alleged to be a habitual offender or a flight risk. The applicant also undertook to abide by any conditions imposed by the Court, including restrictions aimed at addressing the apprehensions of the prosecution. Stress was laid on the constitutional mandate under Article 21, asserting that liberty is the rule and jail is the exception, especially once custodial interrogation is no longer required.

Arguments on Behalf of the State:

Opposing the bail application, the State, through the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that the Court should refrain from exercising discretion in favour of the applicant considering the serious nature of the offence and its devastating consequences. It was argued that the applicant’s alleged act of rash and dangerous driving resulted in the loss of a human life and caused injuries to nine innocent persons, thereby impacting not only the victims but society at large. The State highlighted that the applicant had been booked under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including Section 105, as well as under Sections 184 and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which relate to dangerous driving and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The prosecution further drew the Court’s attention to allegations that the applicant had uttered certain words after the accident, suggesting a lack of remorse, and that an offence under Section 27(A) of the NDPS Act had also been registered on the allegation that the applicant was under the influence of THC (Tetra Hydro Cannabinol) and Codeine at the time of the incident. According to the State, these factors cumulatively indicated a high degree of culpability and recklessness, warranting continued detention. It was submitted that granting bail in such cases could send a wrong message to society and undermine deterrence in offences involving fatal road accidents. The State therefore urged the Court to reject the application in the interest of justice and public safety.

Court’s Judgment:

After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, the Gujarat High Court allowed the application for regular bail, carefully weighing the competing considerations of liberty and societal interest. Justice Nikhil S. Kariel noted that while the offence alleged against the applicant is undoubtedly serious, involving the collision of three vehicles, injuries to nine persons, and the death of one individual, bail jurisprudence requires the Court to examine whether continued custody is necessary at the pre-trial stage. The Court took into account the fact that the applicant is a young person aged around 23 years, a student by background, and that he has remained in custody since 14 March 2025. A crucial factor that weighed with the Court was that the chargesheet had already been filed on 10 June 2025, indicating that investigation was complete and custodial interrogation was no longer required. The Court also noted that except for the cases arising from the present incident, the applicant did not have significant criminal antecedents. While acknowledging the State’s contention regarding alleged drug influence and the seriousness of the allegations, the Court observed that the case against the applicant predominantly revolved around the offence under Section 105 of the BNS, and the evidentiary aspects would ultimately be tested during trial. Without discussing the evidence in detail, the Court formed a prima facie view that this was a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant, albeit with appropriate safeguards to address the prosecution’s apprehensions. Accordingly, the Court directed that the applicant be released on regular bail on furnishing a bond of ₹1,00,000 with one surety of the like amount, subject to conditions imposed by the trial court. Importantly, the High Court clarified that its observations were of a preliminary nature, made solely for the purpose of deciding the bail application, and that the trial court should not be influenced by them while adjudicating the case on merits. The plea was thus allowed, reinforcing the principle that bail decisions must strike a careful balance between individual liberty and the interests of justice.