Vijaysinh Aniruddhsinh vs State Of Gujarat

A. S. Supehia, J

[1] Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties by video conferencing.

[2] By way of the present application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for bail in

connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11202009210947 of 2021 registered with City “B†Division Police Station, Dist.Jamnagar for the offences

punishable under Sections 65A, 65E, 116B, 81 and 98(2) of the Prohibition Act.

[3] It is the case of the prosecution as narrated by the applicant that upon receiving a secret information, one car was intercepted by the police,

wherein the accused No.3 was caught with the muddamal liquor being English Liquor 276 bottles worth Rs.1,38,000/- from his car. It is alleged that

the applicant is shown as the proposed purchaser of the said muddamal and hence, the present F.I.R. has been filed.

[4] Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that there is no evidence to connect the applicant with the alleged offence. He has submitted

that the applicant is falsely implicated in the offence. He has further submitted that the F.I.R. reveals that none of the ingredients of offences are

satisfied against the applicant and the applicant cannot be arraigned in the offence only on the basis of statement of the co-accused who is found in

possession of contraband liquor. He has also submitted that the applicant is working in the Army and serving since long and the car, which was found

in possession of accused No.3 does not belong to the applicant. Moreover, it is submitted that the said muddamal is also recovered from the accused

No.3, who has already been released by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar vide order dated 26.05.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Application

No.533 of 2021. He has submitted that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation of the applicant at this stage is not

necessary. He has further submitted that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation, as well as in the trial also and will

not flee from justice.

[4.1] Learned advocate for the applicant, upon instructions, has submitted 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. He has further

submitted that upon filing of such application by the investigating agency, the right of the applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may

be kept open. Learned advocate, therefore, has submitted that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

[5] On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondentâ€" State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail

looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

[6] Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case,

nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant

anticipatory bail to the applicant.

[7] This Court has considered following aspects;

(a) Prima facie there is nothing to connect the applicant with the alleged offence;

(b) The applicant is arraigned in the offence only on the basis of the statement of the co-accused;

(c) There is no recovery of discovery of muddamal from the applicant;

(d) The car, from which the muddamal is recovered does not belong to the applicant;

(e) The co-accused has already been released anticipatory bail by the Sessions court;

(f) No antecedent is pointed out against the applicant;

(g) Considering the facts of the case, the custodial interrogation of the applicant at this stage is not necessary.

[8] This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (Nct of Delhi), AIR

2020 SC 831 and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 312.

[9] In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR

being C.R. No.11202009210947 of 2021 registered with City “B†Division Police Station, Dist.Jamnagar on his executing a personal bond of

Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that he :

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

(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 15.07.2021 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 till further orders;

(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the concerned trial court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the concerned trial

court within a week.

[10] Despite this order, it would be open for the investigating agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant, if he

considers it proper and just and the Magistrate would decide it on merits. The applicant shall remain present before the concerned Magistrate on the

first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the concerned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to

treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining the 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 concerned 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.

[11] At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.

[12] The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. RULE is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order

to the concerned authority / court through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.

[13] Learned advocate for the applicant is also permitted to send a copy of this order to the concerned authority/court through Fax message, email

and/or any other suitable electronic mode.