Ritesh S/O Gyanoba Shivaji Mahadika vs State Of Gujarat

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned Advocate Mr.Adil R. Mirza for the applicant and learned APP Mr. L.B. Dabhi 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. 11200011251759 of 2025 registered with Valsad Rural Police Station, District Valsad for the offence punishable under Sections 305(d), 331(4), 54 and 317(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita.

Learned Advocate Mr. Mirza for the applicant would submit that the applicant has not been named in the FIR, more particularly the role of the present applicant being mentioned in the affidavit of the Investigating Officer i.e. with regard to receiving stolen ornaments. Learned Advocate would draw the attention of this Court to the averments made in the affidavit, which show that while the applicant had purchased around 6.409 Kg. silver, the same had been recovered by the Investigating Officer. Learned Advocate would submit that considering that the recovery has been established and further having regard to the fact the applicant is not involved in other offences whatsoever and since the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed, this Court may consider releasing the present applicant on regular bail.

As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Dabhi appearing for the respondent – State would vehemently oppose the present application, submitting that the present applicant knowing that the goods in question were stolen goods, had still purchased the same and had infact had changed the entire composition of the material by melting down the ornaments to silver bricks. Learned APP would further submit that present applicant not being a permanent resident of the State of Gujarat, in all likelihood may abscond and would not attend the trial. Thus submitting learned APP would request this Court not to 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) Investigation being over and the charge-sheet being filed.

(ii) Role attributed to the present applicant is of purchasing the stolen property, more particularly the same having been recovered by the Investigating Officer.

(iii) The fact of there being no antecedent against the applicant of being involved in any criminal activity.

(iv) 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. 11200011251759 of 2025 registered with Valsad Rural Police Station, District Valsad, 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 for a period of six months without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;

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

[f] 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 residential address without prior permission of the Sessions Court;

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 Judge 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.