Pragnesh Patel’s Ahmedabad Entry: HC Bail Conditions – No Overseas Travel Without Court Permission & Passport Deposited
In a significant development, the High Court has granted conditional bail to Pragnesh Patel, the father of Tathya Patel, who was involved in a case resulting in injuries to Nav. The High Court’s decision comes with specific conditions and sets the terms for this bail. Pragnesh Patel, in accordance with the conditions of the bail, will be subject to certain restrictions.
One of the primary conditions of the bail is that Pragnesh Patel is prohibited from entering Ahmedabad, except for attending court proceedings related to the case. This restriction is imposed to ensure the smooth conduct of the trial and to maintain order and safety within the city.
Are You Willing to Work Hard to Secure Bail for Your Son Now?
In the wake of the tragic events that unfolded on the late night of July 20, where Tathya Patel was involved in a devastating incident on the ISKCON Bridge, leading to the loss of nine lives, the legal proceedings have taken a complex turn. Pragnesh Patel, father of Tathya Patel, was apprehended at the scene as events unfolded. Subsequently, he faced legal charges related to alleged threats to individuals present during the incident. After a lengthy period of 103 days, Pragnesh Patel has been granted bail, marking a significant development in the ongoing legal process. The question of whether he will actively work towards securing his son’s bail remains a matter of keen interest in this evolving situation.
A Warrant Will Be Issued by the Trial Court if the Conditions Are Violated
Following a thorough review of the First Information Report (FIR) and the trial court documents, the accused has been granted conditional bail, accompanied by a set of stringent orders to ensure the integrity of the legal proceedings. Among these conditions, the accused is strictly prohibited from tampering with evidence and witnesses, engaging in any unlawful activities, or changing their mobile number without prior court permission. Moreover, the accused is required to furnish details of their mobile number, residence, and all properties to both the trial court and the investigating officer. International travel is only permissible with the express permission of the court, and the accused is mandated to produce their passport before the trial court within a week or, if unavailable, file an affidavit to that effect. Additionally, the accused is restricted from entering Ahmedabad, except for court appearances, to safeguard the order and security within the city. It is imperative to note that any violation of these conditions may result in actions taken by the trial court, including the issuance of a warrant. The High Court’s judgment on this bail is considered prima facie, and it will not be considered during the trial by the lower court.
Pragnesh Patel Was Charged With a Crime Under Section 506
A legal case has been registered against Pragnesh Patel under Section 506, which pertains to criminal intimidation. Following the incident, law enforcement took both the father and son into custody and presented them before the Ahmedabad District Court within 24 hours. In this legal process, Pragnesh Patel was remanded to judicial custody at Sabarmati Jail since he did not initially seek bail. Subsequently, he pursued a bail application through his legal representative, Nisar Vaidya, in the district court. However, the bail application was not granted by the lower court, leading Pragnesh Patel to submit a bail application to the High Court for further consideration.
What Were the Arguments Made During the October 25 Hearing?
During the hearing on October 25, pertaining to the Ahmedabad ISKCON Bridge accident case, several arguments were presented in favor of Pragnesh Patel, who is the father of the accused, Tathya Patel. Pragnesh Patel faced multiple charges filed by the police, including Sections 279, 337, 338, 304, 308, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and 177, 184, and 134(B) of the Motor Vehicle Act, primarily related to speeding and the tragic incident that occurred. The charge sheet, which comprises a substantial 1684 pages, was presented in connection with this case.
In this incident, Pragnesh Patel was alleged to have arrived at the scene, where he purportedly threatened individuals present and subsequently took his son, the accused Tathya Patel, to the hospital by allegedly brandishing a revolver.
Following these events, Pragnesh Patel was arrested by the police on charges of threatening people. Subsequently, after his bail application was rejected by the Ahmedabad Village Sessions Court, he proceeded to file a regular bail application in the High Court. The final hearing took place on October 25, under the jurisdiction of Judge MR Mengde, where various legal arguments and evidentiary submissions were presented on behalf of Pragnesh Patel in the pursuit of his bail application.
Rioting With the Public is an Offense
The charge against the petitioner pertains to the offense of rioting in the presence of the public, as outlined in Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 504 prescribes a maximum sentence of two years and is categorized as a bailable offense. The incident in question transpired on July 20, occurring between 12:30 and 1:15 hours. According to the charge sheet, Pragnesh Patel was alleged to have had knowledge of the incident. Following the accident, Pragnesh Patel went to CIMS hospital and promptly informed the police about the occurrence, as is documented in the charge sheet.
Notably, a medical professional, in their statement, attested that Pragnesh Patel brought Tathya to the hospital at 1:45 pm. Tathya had sustained injuries to the head, upper back, cheek, and leg. In his account to the doctor, Tathya mentioned that an accident had taken place, and individuals had asserted that he had been subjected to physical assault. These details are pertinent to the legal proceedings surrounding this case.
Another witness, who arrived at the scene in a Kia car to pick up Dhawan, received a call from Tathya’s friend, Dhawan, who was inside the car at the time. They proceeded to the location to assist Tathya, but upon arrival, they observed a chaotic situation. Tathya’s father, Pragnesh Patel, was carrying Tathya, and unfortunately, Tathya’s body fell onto the road during the commotion. Each witness’s account corroborates that Pragnesh Patel’s involvement is limited to Section 504 of the IPC.
According to the collective witness statements, when the petitioner, Pragnesh Patel, arrived at the scene, he found Tathya being subjected to physical assault by a group of individuals. In response, Pragnesh Patel intervened to protect his son and subsequently ensured that Tathya received medical attention at the hospital.
Despite these factors, the Sessions Court rejected the petitioner’s bail application, citing the seriousness of the incident. However, it is crucial to note that the petitioner was not directly implicated in the incident. Furthermore, it should be acknowledged that the petitioner has faced ten previous charges, for which he was previously granted bail. In those earlier cases, the court had the opportunity to review his prior criminal record and found him not guilty. These factors are pertinent in the current legal proceedings.
The Fact That 9 People Died Due to Negligent Driving is Significant
The public prosecutor, Mitesh Amin, put forth a compelling argument highlighting the severity of this case. He emphasized that nine lives were tragically lost as a result of negligent driving, making it a profoundly serious matter. The accused had already faced charges related to this incident. It should be noted that prior to this incident, there was a single-car accident, leading to the gathering of both law enforcement and civilians. In that earlier incident, nine individuals lost their lives due to reckless driving, and notably, three of those nine casualties were police officers. Additionally, six people sustained injuries, with one individual still hospitalized in an unconscious state as a result of the incident. These facts underscore the gravity of the situation and the importance of a thorough legal examination.
The Accused’s Behavior is Not Good, There is a Serious Crime Against Him
The behavior of the accused, Pragnesh Patel, is a matter of concern and has raised serious apprehensions regarding his potential threat to public safety. It has been reported that Pragnesh Patel arrived at the scene and, notably, instructed his wife to retrieve a revolver from the car, which was then allegedly used to threaten people and intimidate witnesses present during the incident. Given these actions, there is a genuine fear that if the accused is released on bail, he may pose a substantial risk to the safety and well-being of witnesses involved in the case.
It is significant to note that the Ahmedabad Village Sessions Court rejected the discharge petition of the accused. Furthermore, the accused filed an interim bail application, citing the need for cancer treatment. However, the High Court requested that the accused undergo a medical examination to assess his health condition, which the accused did not cooperate with. The accused is facing multiple charges, including gang rape, forgery of land documents, and Section 307 of the IPC, and the trial for these charges is currently underway in the Ahmedabad Village Sessions Court.
Given the seriousness of the offenses and the conduct of the accused, there is a valid argument against granting bail in this case. Public safety and the integrity of the legal process are important factors that must be taken into consideration in making any determinations regarding the accused’s release.
After Listening to Both Sides, the Court Decided to Hold Off on the Verdict
The court, following a thorough hearing of arguments from both sides, has chosen to reserve its verdict on this matter. Pragnesh Patel’s legal counsel presented the argument that the focus of the public prosecutor’s remarks should be limited to the specifics of this case. They emphasized that the previous orders relating to other offenses should be viewed individually and assessed based on their individual merits. Notably, the petitioner resides in Ahmedabad, and his family and property are located in the same area, thus indicating his ties to the region and making it improbable for him to evade the legal process. Additionally, the legal team has challenged the judgment in the Supreme Court regarding the interim bail application.
It’s essential to highlight that the defense pointed out a discrepancy in a witness’s earlier statement, which did not reference the presence of a gun, whereas a subsequent statement introduced this detail. Moreover, the absence of a revolver and the failure to invoke the Arms Act clause were noted. Following the comprehensive deliberation of these arguments, the court ultimately reached a decision and granted bail to Pragnesh Patel while delivering its verdict.
Medical Grounds Were Used to File an Interim Bail Application
Three months ago, Pragnesh Patel submitted an interim bail application in the Ahmedabad District Court, citing medical reasons. His legal counsel, Nisar Vaidya, indicated that Pragnesh Patel was afflicted with oral cancer and required treatment at Tata Hospital in Mumbai. It was on these medical grounds that the bail application was presented. However, an investigation by Divya Bhaskar revealed that Pragnesh Patel had previously secured bail on similar grounds in prior cases but was alleged to have subsequently engaged in threatening behavior towards individuals. Despite this, the bail application was declined by the Ahmedabad District Court, prompting a subsequent application to be filed in the High Court.
Pragnesh Patel has been involved in cases registered at various police stations as follows:
- Sola Police Station – 2 cases.
- Shahpur Police Station – 1 case.
- Ranip Police Station – 1 case.
- Crime Branch – 1 case.
- Women Crime – 1 case.
- NC Complaint in Dang.
- Mehsana – 1 case.
Pragnesh Patel Has Been in Controversy for the Last Four Years
Pragnesh Patel, a prominent figure in the builder community, has been embroiled in a series of controversies over the past four years. In 2020, he faced significant attention when a young woman from Saurashtra filed a complaint in a gang rape case, leading to her arrest. Subsequently, Pragnesh Patel obtained bail in connection with this case.
In 2021, another instance brought Pragnesh Patel into the spotlight when his co-accused in the same gang rape case, along with his friend and a fellow inmate named Jamin Patel, tragically took his own life while in custody at Sabarmati Jail. This incident raised concerns regarding the release of inmates facing such charges.
More recently, Pragnesh Patel’s name has once again become the focus of public discourse, as his son Tathya Patel was involved in a high-speed accident where he drove a Jaguar car at a speed exceeding 180 km/h, resulting in a tragic incident on the ISKCON bridge. Regrettably, this incident claimed the lives of nine individuals, while five others sustained injuries. Consequently, Pragnesh Patel’s name has resurfaced in discussions as the legal proceedings surrounding the case unfold.
What is the Rape Case 2020?
The rape case from 2020, as per the complaint filed at the Ahmedabad Mahila Police Station on November 3, 2020, involved a young woman from Saurashtra. She had applied for a job online, which led to her being summoned to Ahmedabad. Upon her arrival, she was arranged to stay at a hotel. Subsequently, individuals named Pragnesh Patel, Jitendrapuri Goswami, Maldev Bharwad, and Jaimin Patel were reported to have been present at the hotel. These individuals allegedly administered narcotics, alcohol, and MD drugs to the young woman and subjected her to repeated sexual assault. They further used explicit photographs taken during these incidents to blackmail the victim. This case, as detailed in the complaint, revolved around these allegations.
Threatening to Kill the Girl
In this harrowing case, the accused individuals reportedly resorted to threats and intimidation against the young woman. They informed her that they had connections with influential individuals and promised to secure her future. The victim, under duress, was subjected to sexual assault in various hotels and flats.
Furthermore, the ordeal extended to the point where the young woman was taken in a car and assaulted within the vehicle. Throughout this traumatic experience, the accused continued to threaten her, warning of dire consequences if she were to disclose the events to anyone.
Despite the daunting threats, the courageous victim displayed tremendous resolve and reported the crimes to the authorities at the Ahmedabad West Mahila Police Station. In response to her complaint, the police initiated a comprehensive investigation into the entire matter.
The Prisoner Wrote a Suicide Note Before Dying
The tragic situation of the prisoner who took his own life in Sabarmati Jail was marked by the writing of a suicide note prior to his demise. In this poignant note, the prisoner expressed his despair and acceptance of the circumstances, acknowledging his inability to be released in the case. He extended apologies to his family in the note, reflecting the gravity of the situation.
A gang-rape case had been registered at the Mahila West police station against the accused, which included Jamin Patel, in the year 2020. In this case, four individuals, namely Pragnesh Patel, Maldev Bharwad, Jitendrapuri Goswami, and Jaimin Patel, were arrested.
All the accused in the gang rape case, including Jamin Patel, Pragnesh Patel, Jitendrapuri Goswami, and Maldev Bharwad, were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). These charges encompassed IPC Sections 376D for gang rape, 120b for criminal conspiracy, 406 for breach of trust, 362 for kidnapping, 294b for obscenity, and 506 for criminal intimidation, highlighting the seriousness of the allegations and the legal proceedings related to this case.
