Pradipsinh @ P.D. Dilipsinh Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard Mr. Jigar Patel, learned advocate appearing for and on behalf of Mr.Malaykumar S.Patel, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

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

By way of this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant – original accused prays for being released on anticipatory bail in connection with (CR.No. III- 472 of 2022) FIR No. 11198035220650 of 2022 registered with Mahuva Police Station, Bhavnagar for offences punishable under Sections 65(A)(E), 116(b), 81, 98(2) of Prohibition Act.

Mr. Jigar Patel, learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

Having considered the submissions made by learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the documents on record as well as investigation papers, the following aspects are considered by this Court:

[1] That the quantity which was seized from the residential premise of the present applicant is very meager quantity i.e. two bottles contraband liquor.

[2] The allegation against the present applicant being that the applicant is the supplier of the liquor which is borne out from such recovery, though the present applicant has two criminal antecedents. It is pointed out by learned advocate for the applicant that the offence punishable under the provision of IPC is concerned, he has been acquitted whereas, there is antecedent of the year 2020 against the present applicant for the offence punishable under the provision of Gujarat Prohibition Act.

Having regard to the circumstances in question, and considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011)1 SCC 694 , this Court is inclined to consider this application.

Learned Advocates for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.

In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to (CR.No. III- 472 of 2022) FIR No. 11198035220650 of 2022 registered with Mahuva

Police Station, Bhavnagar, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of like amount, on the following conditions:

(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;

(b) shall mark his presence before the concerned police station twice in a month for a period of three months between 11.00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;

(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the Police;

(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change his residence till the final disposal of the case or till further orders;

(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if having passports shall surrender the same before the Trial Court within a week.

Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to file an application for police remand of the applicant to the competent Magistrate, if he thinks it just and proper and learned Magistrate would decide it on merits. The applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if ultimately granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicant, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order.

At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted.