Danish @ Hakudo Salimbhai Jumabhai Vadaniya(Ghanchi) vs State Of Gujarat

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned advocate Mr.Sajid Kariyaniya appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Trupesh Kathiriya appearing on behalf of 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. 11217020240288/2024 registered with B-Division Police Station, Patan City for the offence punishable under Sections 8(C), 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

Learned advocate Mr.Kariyaniya for the applicant would submit that while the contraband Ganja is not recovered from the conscious possession of the present applicant, the present applicant has been named as an accused upon the statement of a co-accused who has inter alia stated that the present applicant was one of the proposed receiver of the material in question. Learned advocate would submit that while undoubtedly the contraband is beyond the commercial quantity, but, on the face of very flimsy evidence against the present applicant, which is the only evidence even after the charge-sheet has been filed, this Court may consider releasing the present applicant on regular bail. Learned advocate would further submit that the applicant has an antecedent of being involved in a criminal activity hereinbefore, yet, learned advocate would submit that the same was an offence under the IPC and the applicant has been acquitted in a trial arising from the said complaint.

As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Kathiriya appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently opposed the grant of regular bail. Learned Learned APP would submit that the contraband material recovered was more than the commercial quantity. Learned APP would submit that apart from the statement of the co-accused, there are call detail records which reveal that the applicant and the co-accused were having conversation with each other. Learned APP would submit that having regard to the same, the role of the present applicant being established as the proposed purchaser, this Court may not enlarge 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 present applicant’s name being drawn into the investigation on account of a statement of the co-accused who has named the present applicant as the proposed purchaser.

ii. While learned APP has inter alia tried to submit that there are call detail records as regards the present applicant and the accused concerned who had named him conversing with each other, yet, to this Court, it would appear that CDRs would be indicative of there being some conversation between the parties in question and whereas, that by itself would not be good enough material to retain the present applicant in custody indefinitely.

iii. The fact that even after charge-sheet is laid by the I.O., beyond the above, there being no material basis which the applicant could be implicated with the offence in question.

iv. The fact that though the present applicant is stated to have one antecedent, he has been acquitted in the same.

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. 11217020240288/2024 registered with B-Division Police Station, Patan City, on executing a bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousands 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] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior intimation to the I.O.;

[f] mark presence once a month for a period of six months before the concerned police station.

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 stage, only for the purpose of considering the application of the applicant for being released on regular bail.

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.