High CourtsSingle Bench

Sagar Madhav Pradhan vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 12 December 2023 · Citation: (2023) 12 GUJ CK 0039

HON’BLE JUDGES
Divyesh A. Joshi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 8(c), 11(C), 20(B), 29
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
R/Criminal Misc.Application (For Regular Bail - After Chargesheet) No. 19847 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 939 words

Divyesh A. Joshi, J

1.

The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with C.R.No.11214021210985 of 2021 registered with Kosamba Police Station, District Surat Rural for the offence punishable under sections 8(c), 20(B), ii(C) and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

2.

Learned advocate Mr. Rajput submits that the so-called incident is occurred on 17.08.2021 and on the same day, FIR has been filed against total 9 accused persons, out of which, four accused have been shown as wanted and rest of the accused persons have been arrested on the spot. It is further submitted that present applicant accused is arrested on 15.08.2022 and since then he is in judicial custody. The investigation is already completed and after the submission of the charge-sheet, present bail application is preferred. It is further submitted that members of the raiding party have raided a particular premises and from the conscious possession of the co-accused persons contraband muddamal ganja was recovered and during the course of investigation, name of the present applicant accused has come on surface as the applicant accused used to purchase the contraband ganja from those accused persons. Except the statement of the co-accused no other material is available on record against the applicant accused. There is no past antecedent against the applicant accused. Considering the above stated factual aspects, the applicant may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable terms and conditions.

3.

Learned APP Mr. Manan Mehta has objected present bail application with vehemence and submitted that huge quantity of contraband muddamal Ganja was recovered from the conscious possession of the co-accused persons and during the course of investigation, name of the present applicant accused has come on surface and his name is mentioned in the FIR from very beginning. Considering the role of the applicant accused, bail application of the applicant may not be entertained.

4.

I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. I have perused the police papers as well as other documents produced by the applicant along with the memo of the application. It is found out from the record that incident is occurred on 17.08.2021 and on the same day, FIR came to be filed against total 9 accused persons, out of which, four accused have been shown as wanted and rest of the accused persons have been arrested on the spot. The applicant accused is arrested on 15.08.2022 and since then he is in judicial custody. The investigation is already completed and after the submission of the charge-sheet, present bail application is preferred. It is found out from the record that from the conscious possession of the co-accused persons contraband muddamal ganja was recovered and during the course of investigation, name of the present applicant accused has come on surface as the applicant accused used to purchase the contraband ganja from those accused persons. Considering the above stated factual aspects as well as role played by the applicant accused at the time of commission of crime, I am inclined to consider present bail application.

5.

This Court has also 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 as well as in case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2022)10 SCC 51.

6.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, 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.

7.

Hence, the present application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with C.R.No.11214021210985 of 2021 registered with Kosamba Police Station, District Surat Rural, on executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen 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 injuries 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 Judge concerned;

[e] mark presence before the concerned Police Station on alternate Monday of every English calendar month for a period of six months between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;

[f] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;

8.

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 issue warrant or 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.

9.

At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.

10.

The present application stands allowed accordingly. Direct service is permitted.