The Gujarat High Court has granted bail to three men accused of participating in a violent clash during a forest plantation drive near Ambaji, while sharply rebuking a local sessions court for overstepping its legal authority in a prior ruling.
Justice Nikhil Kariel, presiding over the regular bail applications on Thursday, described the actions of an in-charge sessions judge in Banaskantha as very disturbing. The High Court observed that the lower court’s previous order, which denied bail to the accused on May 8, exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and ran directly counter to findings previously recorded by the High Court itself.
Lack Of Substantive Evidence Cited
In granting bail, Justice Kariel pointed out a significant lack of evidence connecting the three applicants to the violence. The prosecution’s case rested almost entirely on self-implicatory statements by the accused and a video recording of the incident. However, the High Court noted that the video was missing from the chargesheet and failed to clearly prove the applicants’ presence at the scene. Furthermore, a coordinate bench had already granted bail to a co-accused who faced similar allegations.
Bail Conditions And Legal Arguments
Representing the accused, advocate AJ Yagnik argued that because the investigation was complete and the chargesheet had been filed, keeping the men detained indefinitely served no practical purpose. He assured the court that the applicants would comply with all bail conditions. Additional Public Prosecutor Hardik Soni opposed the bail on behalf of the state, arguing that the severity of the charges and the roles attributed to the accused in the chargesheet did not warrant judicial leniency.
The High Court ultimately ordered the release of the three men on personal bonds of Rs 10,000 each with matching sureties. They must surrender their passports and cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation. The individual identified by prosecutors as the lead conspirator faces additional restrictions, including a six-month ban on entering the jurisdiction of the Ambaji police station and a mandate to report monthly to the Danta police station.
Sessions Court Exceeded Authority
The High Court focused heavily on the May 8 bail rejection by the Banaskantha sessions court. Justice Kariel noted that the lower court judge had strayed far beyond the scope of a standard bail hearing by declaring the dispute to be an instance of land grabbing.
Additionally, the sessions judge had ordered copies of the rejection ruling to be sent to senior administrative and law enforcement figures—including the chief secretary, the principal secretary of the General Administration Department, and the district magistrate—demanding they implement Supreme Court guidelines on mob lynching. The High Court ruled these directives were a clear overreach of judicial powers.
Origins Of The Ambaji Clash
The criminal case originates from an incident on December 13, 2025, in Padaliya village, located in the Danta taluka of Banaskantha district. Violence erupted when a mob of approximately 500 people allegedly assaulted police and forest officials who were overseeing a plantation drive.
According to the initial police report filed by a forest official, the crowd blocked roads with felled trees and boulders, attacking government staff with stones, bows and arrows, swords, and axes. An FIR was registered at the Ambaji Police Station, naming 26 individuals out of the 500-strong crowd, charging them with offenses including dacoity, attempt to murder, and damage to public property.
To address the lower court’s procedural overreach, the High Court has summoned its Law Officers Branch to appear at the next scheduled hearing on July 28.
