Gujarat HC Upholds Probation For Four Convicted Of Assaulting Election Rival, Citing Their Compliance With Conditions

The applicant, the original complainant, challenged the Sessions Court’s decision to uphold the accused persons’ convictions while releasing them on probation.

The convictions arose from an incident on 8 January 2017, in which the accused allegedly assaulted a prosecution witness following an election-related dispute; the trial court convicted them under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The complainant argued that the Sessions Court had failed to consider written objections concerning the accused persons’ alleged criminal antecedents and influence in the locality.

The High Court noted that no subsequent untoward incident or breach of peace had been reported and that the accused had complied with the probation conditions.

The revision application was brought under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The Court stated that revisional interference is limited to examining the correctness, legality, or propriety of the lower court’s order and is not justified absent patent illegality, perversity, or material irregularity resulting in miscarriage of justice.

It also observed that probation is not an entitlement, but courts may exercise discretion to release an offender on appropriate terms, consistently with probation’s reformatory purpose, where the requisite conditions are satisfied.

The judgment does not identify a specific probation statute or name any precedent.

The High Court considered the complainant’s objections concerning the accused persons’ alleged antecedents and influence, but assessed them against the limited scope of its revisional jurisdiction.

It noted that the accused had complied with the conditions imposed by the Sessions Court and that no subsequent untoward incident or breach of peace had been reported.

Applying the reformatory purpose of probation and the standard for revisional interference, the Court found no illegality, perversity, or impropriety in the Sessions Court’s decision.

It confirmed the judgment and order dated 28 February 2026 in Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 2024 and dismissed the revision application; the record and proceedings, if any, were directed to be returned to the concerned court.