Sandipkumar Bachubhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned Advocate Mr.Dhruvin Mehta appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Ronak Raval 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 FIR No.11822006220693 of 2022 registered with Bilimora Police Station, District Navsari on 19.6.2022 for offences punishable under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 116-B, 81, 98(2) of Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

Learned Advocate Mr.Mehta for the applicant would submit that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation of the applicant at this stage is not necessary. Learned Advocate Mr.Mehta would submit that there is no material on record to connect the present applicant to the offence in question. 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 Advocate Mr.Mehta for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. Learned Advocate would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant-accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open.

This application has been vehemently opposed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Raval appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, who would submit that looking to the nature and gravity of the offence the applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail by this Court.

Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the investigation papers as well as the documents on record, following aspects are taken into consideration by this Court:

That the prohibited material had been recovered from the house of Rajubhai Chaganbhai Patel. That the said accused had inter alia stated that the prohibited liquor had been given by the accused Nos.2 and 3 and it was stated to be delivered to accused Nos.4 to 7. The present applicant being accused No.6, except for such a statement, there is nothing on record which would connect the present applicant to the offence in question.

That while it is undoubtedly true that a series of conversations had taken place between the applicant and accused No.4, it is required to be observed that the role of the accused No.4 is also attributable to that of the present applicant i.e. of being person who had called for the prohibited material. It also requires to be noted that the applicant and the accused No.4 reside in nearby villages and, therefore, the fact that the applicant talking to accused No.4 inter se over mobile may not be directly attributable to any offence being committed by the applicant. That the accused No.4, who kept on calling the accused No.1, who had transported the prohibited liquor.

The fact that the applicant having no antecedents of having involved in similar activity.

Having regard to the circumstances noted above, 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.

In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR No.11822006220693 of 2022 registered with Bilimora Police Station, District Navsari on 19.6.2022, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of like amount, on the following conditions that the applicant:

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

(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 29.07.2022 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;

(g) shall mark his presence on every first Monday of the month for a period of next three months at the concerned Police Station;

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.