Liberty of individual cannot be curtailed on apprehension that he might tamper with evidence: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court recently held that a person cannot be deprived of his liberty merely based on the apprehension that he might tamper with evidence [Naransinh Amarsinh Bihola vs State of Gujarat]..Single-judge Justice Samir Dave said that if a person under such circumstances is not granted bail then it would be against the provisions of the Constitution. "In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances," the judge observed in the order dated December 23..From the earliest times, the judge said, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship."From time-to-time, 'necessity' demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, 'necessity' is the operative test," the bench said..The Court was seized of an application seeking bail in a murder case in relation to an incident that took place in October 2018.The Bench refused to accept the 'amicable settlement' between the parties and also the affidavit sworn-in by the complainant stating that he has no objection to the applicant being released on bail."Such a practice is unwarranted and it amounts to hampering/ tampering with the evidence or witnesses, when such a serious offence of murder is committed. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that such an affidavit on oath filed by the original complainant cannot be considered, looking to the gravity and severity of the offence committed by the accused person," the bench said in its order..Advocate Kishan R Chakwawala appeared for the Applicant.Advocate Sanjay Prajapati appeared for the Complainant.Additional Public Prosecutor JK Shah represented the State..[Read Order]