Aneeskhan Abdulvahid Khan vs State Of Gujarat

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned Advocate Mr. Gajendra Baghel for the applicant and learned APP Ms. Asmita Patel for the respondent-State.

Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11210066240363 of 2024 registered with Pal Police Station, Surat City for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A), 22(B), 8(C) , 27 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

Learned Advocate Mr. Baghel for the applicant would submit that the contraband in question – mephedrone weighing approximately 28.79 Grams had been recovered from co-accused and whereas the co-accused had allegedly named the present applicant as the supplier of the said mephedrone and whereas it is under such circumstances that the present applicant has been named as an accused and had been arrested. Learned Advocate would submit that now the charge-sheet had been led by the I.O. and whereas except for the call detail records which would show that there was conversion between the present applicant and the other accused, there is nothing to link the present applicant with the alleged offence, more particularly there is no material to show that the applicant was the supplier of the contraband to the other accused. Learned Advocate would submit that the applicant has been in custody for more than a year and whereas learned Advocate would also draw the attention of this Court to an order passed by learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 15.04.2025 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 7467 of 2025, wherein in case of a complaint, where similar allegation of being the supplier was levelled against the present applicant and whereas while the mephedrone recovered was approximately 252 grams, yet, the learned Co-ordinate Bench had been pleased to release the present applicant. Thus submitting learned Advocate request this Court to enlarge the present applicant on regular bail.

As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Patel appearing for the respondent – State would vehemently oppose the present application, submitting that the co-accused had upon his arrest, clearly named the present applicant as the supplier. Learned APP would submit there are call detail records which would show that the present applicant and the co-accused were talking over the telephone. It is further submitted that the present applicant is not a resident of the State of Gujarat and whereas if release on bail, there is all likelihood the present applicant may abscond and may not be available facing the trial. Thus submitting learned APP request that this Court may not release the present applicant on regular bail.

Having regard to the fact that the applicant has prayed for grant of regular bail, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

(i) The fact of the investigation not revealing any other material except the call detail records to implicate the present applicant.

(ii) To this Court, it would prima facie appear that while there may be call detail records which was show that the applicant may have talked with the main accused, that by itself may not at this stage may not be enough for keeping the applicant in custody any further.

(iii) The fact of the applicant being in custody for more than one year.

(iv) The fact of the learned Co-ordinate Bench having released the present applicant on regular bail, where in an FIR where identical allegation of being the supplier was levelled the present applicant.

(v) The fact that in the present FIR as well as in the FIR, there was no recovery of the contraband from the present applicant.

(vi)The apprehension of the learned APP could be allayed by imposing suitable conditions.

This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. registered as C.R. No. 11210066240363 of 2024 registered with Pal Police Station, Surat City, on executing a bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Court concerned;

[e] Mark presence at the concerned Police Station, once a fortnight till the trial commences, between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

[f] furnish the residential address in the State of Gujarat to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the same, without advance intimation to the I.O.;

The Authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Court concerned will be free to take appropriate action in the matter.

Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law.

At the stage of trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations of this Court which are of preliminary nature made at this