Balaji Javanji Thakore vs State Of Gujarat

Samir J. Dave, J

By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered as C.R. No.11195024210968 of 2021 with Gadh Police Station, Banaskantha, for the offences punishable under Sections 65(a), 65(e) and 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

Learned advocate Mr. Keyur Vyas, for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. It is submitted that the alleged muddamal is not recovered from his possession. It is further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the offence. It is further submitted that the applicant is having good reputation in the society and if the police arrest him then his reputation in the society will diminish. It is further submitted that the applicant is doing labour for livelihood and if he is arrested by police, lives and livelihood of his family would ruin. He has further submitted that the offence is neither punishable with life imprisonment nor with death penalty. He further submits that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions that may deem fit and proper to the Court while releasing the applicant on anticipatory bail and therefore, he has prayed to allow the present bail application.

2.1 He further submits that no discovery or recovery were found from the possession of the applicant and therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. However, as per the complaint, the muddamal was found at the place as mentioned in the impugned FIR. That, there is no documentary evidence to show that where the muddamal was found. When the raid was conducted the applicant was not present and therefore, also the applicant deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has objected the submissions made by learned advocate appearing for the applicant, submitting that applicant has involved in the present offence and trial court has rightly rejected the prayer of the applicant to release him on bail. Hence, it is requested by learned APP appearing for the respondent-State, not to entertain the present application

Heard learned advocates for the appearing parties as also perused the bail application and documents annexed with it as also other papers produced on record. Having heard learned advocate appearing for the parties as also perusing the FIR and documents, it reveals that Police has seized 240 bottles of illegal Indian made foreign liquor including desi liquor worth Rs.36,340 from the house of the applicant. The Trial Court has observed in its order that the applicant has earlier remain involved in this similar type of offence. It is reported by the Investigating Agency that if the discretion is granted in favour of the applicant, there is strong possibility that the witnesses may be influenced and there will be tampering with the evidence.

Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties as well as considering the FIR and also the observations made by learned Additional Sessions Judge while rejecting the application for anticipatory bail, this Court is fully in agreement with the observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, present application is rejected.