PARMAR PARULBEN VIJAYKUMAR @ DARBAR PARULBEN VIJAYKUMAR vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/CR.RA/1744/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240413232026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 1744 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI sd/-

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
no
==========================================================
PARMAR PARULBEN VIJAYKUMAR @ DARBAR PARULBEN VIJAYKUMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
JAY R SHAH(8428) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JINESH H KAPADIA(5601) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN H RAVAL ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

Date : 27/10/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present revision application under Section
438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNSS”), the applicant – original
complainant has prayed to modify the judgment and order dated
th
28.02.2026 passed by the learned 4 Additional Sessions Judge,
Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Sessions Court”)
in Criminal Appeal No.356 of 2024, whereby, while confirming
the conviction, the learned Sessions Court has extended the
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 19:11:36 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/1744/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240413232026)
benefit of probation to the original accused Nos.1 to 4 –
respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein.
2. Heard Mr. Jay R. Shah, learned advocate for the applicant
– original complainant and Mr. Rohan H. Raval, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 – State.
3. Mr. Jay R. Shah, learned advocate for the applicant, has
submitted that the accused – Bhavnaben is the sitting Sarpanch
of the village and that she and her family members are politically
influential persons in the locality. It is further submitted that
even after the commission of the present offence, the accused
persons have continued to indulge in serious offences against
the society and several criminal antecedents are registered
against them, which clearly reflects their settled propensity
towards crime. It is submitted that such antecedents were
specifically brought to the notice of the learned Sessions Court
by the applicant by way of written objections; however, the
learned Sessions Court has failed to consider the said material
and no finding has been recorded thereon.
3.1 It is further submitted that before extending the benefit of
probation, the learned Sessions Court was duty bound to
examine the character, conduct and antecedents of the accused
persons, along with the nature of the offence and the attending
circumstances of the case. In the present case, none of the said
considerations have been properly appreciated. The learned
Sessions Court has solely relied upon the report of the Probation
Officer, which is deficient and unreliable, without independently
testing the same against the material available on record. The
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 19:11:36 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/1744/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240413232026)
objections filed by the applicant, specifically pointing out the
antecedents and the influential position of the accused persons,
have neither been considered nor dealt with in the impugned
judgment and order. It is, therefore, submitted that the
impugned judgment and order is perverse, passed without due
application of mind and contrary to the settled principles
governing the grant of probation and hence, the same deserves
to be quashed and set aside.
4. Per contra, Mr. Rohan H. Raval, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the respondent – State, has vehemently opposed
the present revision application and submitted that the learned
Sessions Court has not committed any error in extending the
benefit of probation to the accused persons. It is submitted that
the benefit of probation has been extended subject to conditions
and in the event of any breach thereof, appropriate action could
have been taken against the accused persons; however, till date,
no untoward incident has been reported against them. It is,
therefore, submitted that no interference is called for at the
hands of this Court in the impugned judgment and order and
the present revision application deserves to be dismissed.
5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and having perused the material placed on record, it
appears that on 08.01.2017, the accused persons picked up a
quarrel with the prosecution witness on account of his
contesting the election against them and assaulted him with a
stick and a dhariya. On that basis, an FIR came to be lodged
against the accused persons for the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 324, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 19:11:36 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/1744/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240413232026)
Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC”), which culminated into Criminal
Case No.1906 of 2017. Upon conclusion of the trial and after
appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Nadiad, vide judgment and order dated 13.06.2024,
convicted respondent Nos.2 to 5 and sentenced each of them to
undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence
punishable under Section 323 read with Section 114 of the IPC
and simple imprisonment for six months for the offence
punishable under Section 324 read with Section 114 of the IPC.
Each of the accused was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
and in default thereof, to undergo further simple imprisonment
for one month.
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad in Criminal Case
No.1906 of 2017, the original accused Nos.1 to 4 preferred
Criminal Appeal No.356 of 2024 before the learned Sessions
Court, Nadiad. The learned Sessions Court, vide judgment and
order dated 28.02.2026, while upholding the order of conviction
recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad, was
pleased to extend the benefit of probation to the accused
persons, subject to their maintaining good behaviour and
keeping peace in the society.
7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by
the learned Sessions Court, the original complainant has
preferred the present revision application before this Court. At
this juncture, it is pertinent to note that no untoward incident
has been reported against the accused persons, nor has any
breach of peace been committed by them. On the contrary, the
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 19:11:36 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/1744/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240413232026)
accused persons have complied with all the conditions imposed
upon them.
8. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the scope of
interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is limited. While
exercising such jurisdiction, this Court is only required to satisfy
itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the finding,
sentence or order recorded or passed by the Court below. It is
well settled by a catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court that, unless the impugned order suffers from patent
illegality, perversity or a material irregularity resulting in
miscarriage of justice, the revisional Court would not be justified
in substituting its own view for the view taken by the Court
below.
9. It is true that an accused cannot claim the benefit of
probation as a matter of right. However, the object underlying
the law of probation is reformatory in nature, i.e. to reform the
offender rather than merely to punish him, which is the avowed
aim of both the Court and the law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court,
in a catena of judgments, has laid down the principles governing
the extension of the benefit of probation and has consistently
held that once the requisite conditions are satisfied, the Court is
duty bound to consider whether the case before it is a fit case for
releasing the offender on probation. The Court is vested with the
discretion to extend such benefit on such terms and conditions
as it may deem fit and proper.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the learned Sessions Court has not
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 19:11:36 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/1744/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240413232026)
committed any error, much less an error apparent on the face of
the record, in extending the benefit of probation to the accused
persons. The impugned judgment and order does not suffer from
any illegality, perversity or impropriety so as to warrant
interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction.
11. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 28.02.2026
th
passed by the learned 4 Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad in
Criminal Appeal No.356 of 2024 is hereby confirmed.
12. Accordingly, the present revision application stands
dismissed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Court forthwith.
sd/-
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
PARMAR KRISH
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 19:11:36 IST 2026