Gujarat High Court
Bheravsinh Mansinh Rajput vs State Of Gujarat on 9 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7332/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 7332
of 2025
==========================================================
BHERAVSINH MANSINH RAJPUT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
A R KADRI(7330) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HK PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 09/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent - State of Gujarat.
2. By way of present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS"), the applicant-original accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being CR No.11207024250183 of 2025 registered with Godhra Taluka Police Station, Panchmahal for the offence under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 81, 83 and 98(2) of the Prohibition Act and Section 336 (2), 336(3) and 340 (2) of the BNS.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely roped in the offence and nothing is recovered from the present applicant accused. The applicant has been implicated only on the basis of the statement of co-accused. Further, the applicant is not aware about the incident. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Apr 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 12 01:21:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7332/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined be granted anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the present applicant. The learned APP has submitted that the accused is involved in the illegal transportation of a large consignment of I.M.F.L. A total of 38,400 bottles of illegal liquor, worth Rs. 42,24,000/-, has been seized by the police. The applicant had allegedly ordered this large consignment of I.M.F.L. into the prohibited area of the State of Gujarat and was patrolling the vehicle loaded with the illicit liquor. It is further submitted that the applicant has criminal antecedents and has been involved in a similar offence in the past. If the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, it would encourage such illegal activities, and there is a strong possibility that, if released on bail, he may tamper with the evidence. Hence, as the investigation is at a preliminary stage, it is requested that the present application be dismissed.
5. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by learned advocate for both the sides and considered the material placed on record.
6. Prima facie, going through the record, it transpires that the police had received information regarding a consignment of illegal liquor being transported from Vadodara to Godhra, and that the said vehicle was being escorted by a Creta car. Accordingly, the police laid a watch at Paravdi, Jalaram Chokdi. When the identified Creta approached the checkpoint, the driver fled with the vehicle upon seeing the police. However, the Eicher Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Apr 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 12 01:21:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7332/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined truck following the Creta was intercepted by the police, and upon searching the Eicher, a consignment of illegal liquor (muddamal) was found being transported without any valid pass or permit. The police apprehended the driver and his companion who were transporting the said vehicle and also seized the muddamal liquor.
7. It further appears that the police seized a total of 38,400 bottles of Liquor (I.M.F.L.), valued at Rs. 42,24,000, which were being illegally transported into the prohibited area of Gujarat. The investigation revealed that the contraband liquor was being transported from Goa via Maharashtra in an Eicher truck. It further emerged that the applicant had procured this consignment of illegal liquor and was guiding the Eicher truck while driving a Creta car. However, the applicant fled the scene upon noticing a police checkpoint. CCTV footage from the toll plaza, collected by the Investigating Officer, prima facie establishes that the applicant was traveling ahead of the Eicher truck and piloting the vehicle at the relevant time. The Call Detail Records (CDR) and Subscriber Detail Records (SDR) obtained by the Investigating Officer confirm that the applicant was in constant communication with the truck driver via WhatsApp during this period. The data related to these communications, also collected by the Investigating Officer, further corroborates that the applicant maintained continuous contact with the driver of the Eicher truck.
8. It is noteworthy that the applicant is a habitual offender, as he has seven past antecedents that clearly reveal he earns his Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Apr 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 12 01:21:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7332/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined livelihood by buying and selling contraband liquor. Since Gujarat is declared a dry state, such activities are prohibited here. Considering the applicant's past record, the Court is of the view that if he is released on bail, he is likely to re-engage in such illegal activities.
9. Further, the applicant's name is mentioned in the FIR as accused and his specific role and involvement is spells out from the FIR and in further investigation, his further role is revealed and material is collected during the custodial interrogation of co- accused who was arrested on the spot. Further, the offence is registered on 28.02.2025 but till date the applicant is out of reach and he is not found even at his house and is evading his arrest. The applicant was operating a network, loading contraband liquor, and intending to deliver it to various districts in Gujarat.
10. So far as the submission on behalf of the applicant that only on the basis of statement of co-accused, present applicant is implicated in the present offence is concerned, it is needless to say that at the time of investigation, statement of co-accused provides clues to the investigating agency as to how to investigate the case and thereafter the Investigating Officer has to collect evidence against the person who has been named as accused. In light of the above provisions, there is no bar on considering the statement of co-accused for investigation purposes. At this stage, it is relevant to note that this Court has observed in the case of Mohmed Salim Abdul Rashid Shaikh vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2001(2) GLR 1580, in para 12, as Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Apr 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 12 01:21:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7332/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined under:
"...It is pertinent to note that the prosecution case rests mainly on circumstantial evidence and police has received a clue against the present applicant from the statement of co-accused, already arrested. Irrespective of the fact that statement of co-accused to police is not admissible in evidence before the Court, but police can certainly consider that statement as a clue while interrogating him further or other persons arrested or interrogated during the course of investigation..."
11. Further, in the case of Mohammed Fasrin vs. State Rep. By the Intelligence Officer rendered in Criminal Misc. Application No.296 of 2014, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
".......The confessions of a co-accused gives a clue to the investigating authorities as to how to investigate the matter and against whom to investigate the matter. Thereafter, it is for the investigating officers to collect evidence against the said person who has been named by the co-accused....."
In view of the above, during the investigation, statement of co-accused provides a clue for investigation and to unearth the truth, statement of co-accused is required. Even considering the fact that as the applicant is involved such illegal activities in past also, though he has been given the benefit of doubt due to lack of evidence in three criminal cases lodged against the applicant, he has not been honorably acquitted. Even thereafter, the present applicant has involved himself in the present offence again.
12. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jigneshkumar Maheshbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat has Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Apr 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 12 01:21:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7332/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined observed as under :
"15. This Court, in one of its judgments, in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Desai Jigisbhai @ Rajubhai Nagjibhai, Criminal Misc. Application No.23576 of 2015, decided on 4th February, 2016, observed as under;
"25. When a Court is given a discretion, the statute confers upon it the power to act according to what may appear to be best and appropriate under the circumstances of the particular case. The discretion is not willful or arbitrary, but is regulated by well- known and well established principles. In many circumstances, the Judge has a discretion as to whether, and in what manner, to exercise his powers. Commonly encountered instances of judicial discretion are the discretion as to grant of bail in a non-bailable offence. However, no discretion is absolute and there may be a successful appeal to the Court of Appeal in relation to the exercise of a judicial discretion if the appellant can show that the judge exercised his discretion under a mistake of law, or under a misapprehension as to the facts, or that he took into account irrelevant matters or gave insufficient weight, or too much weight, to certain factors or that he failed to exercise his discretion at all.
26.In Puran v. Rambilas and Anr. (2001 (6) SCC 338) it was noted as follows :
"11. Further, it is to be kept in mind that the concept of setting aside the unjustified illegal or perverse order is totally different from the concept of cancelling the bail on the ground that the accused has misconducted himself or because of some new facts requiring such cancellation. This position is made clear by this Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.). In that case the Court observed as under (SCC p. 124, para 16) :
"If, however, a Court of Session had admitted an accused person to bail, the State has two options. It may move the Sessions Judge if certain new Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Apr 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 12 01:21:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7332/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined circumstances have arisen which were not earlier known to the State and necessarily, therefore, to that Court. The State may as well approach the High Court being the superior Court under Section 439(2) to commit the accused to custody. When, however, the State is aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge granting bail and there are no new circumstances that have cropped up except those already existing, it is futile for the State to move the Sessions Judge again and it is competent in law to move the High Court for cancellation of the bail. This position follows from the subordinate position of the Court of Session vis-a-vis the High Court."
16. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the criminal defendant and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the criminal defendant's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice. Over a period of time, a feeling seems to exist in some quarters that the object of criminal law is to protect the rights of the accused and that the criminal justicing system is envisioned as a sentinel of the rights of the accused. It is not so. The law is the sentinel of rights of the society and of the individual. The rights of the criminal defendant will be as zealously guarded, as the cause of public justice. Pre-trial detention in itself is not an evil, nor opposed to the basic presumption of innocence. If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure maintenance of law and order and public health, then the courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty. Ensuring security and order including public health is a permissible non-punitive objective, which can be achieved by pre-trial detention. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require denial of bail, it has to be denied."
13. Now, coming back to the facts of the present case and looking to the material placed on record, it clearly transpires that the applicant has remained absconder. In the instant case, role Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Apr 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 12 01:21:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7332/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined of the applicant is attributed as a receiver of the liquor and it was very much within the knowledge of the applicant that Gujarat being a dry state, prohibition is there, however, he ordered the contraband.
14. In aforesaid backdrop, custodial interrogation is necessary. When serious offences are disclosed and involvement of an accused prima facie established then, the Court would be loath to lean in favour of grant of pre-arrest bail in absence of any other overriding considerations. The alleged offence is in nature of white collar and socioeconomic offence, this Court is conscious with the safeguards provided under Section 482 of the BNSS (section 438 of the CrPC) and concept of the personal liberty. But herein, I am of the considered of view that, the present offence is not just an offence against any individual rather the largest societal interest and public welfare is involved in and in such circumstances, the delicate balance is required to be maintained between two rights one against the personal liberty and second is societal interest. Arrest is part of the process of investigation and intended to secure several purposes. In which the accused may provide information, during the the discovery of material facts and to relevant information.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2012) 4 SCC 379 has been pleased to hold as under:-
"Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offences are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefore. Anticipatory bail can be granted Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Apr 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 12 01:21:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7332/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty."
16. It is appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Pratibha Manchanda vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2023 SC 3307, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus:-
"19. The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome."
17. In such circumstances, when investigation is in preliminary stage if, anticipatory bail is granted may hamper the investigation and to collect the material in the more information, and find out the involvements of another person custodial interrogation is also necessary, therefore, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of
(i) State Rep. by the CBI V/s Anil Sharma reported in 1997 (7) SCC 187, (ii) Adri Dharan Das V/s State of W.B. reported in 2005 (4) SCC 303 and (iii) P. Chidambaram V/s Directorate of Enforcement reported in AIR 2019 SC 4198, wherein the Hon'ble Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Apr 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 12 01:21:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7332/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined Supreme Court has held held as follows:
"The legislative intent behind the introduction of Section 438 CrPC is to safeguard the individual's personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary police custody. However, the court must also keep in view that a criminal offence is not just an offence against an individual rather the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights
- safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest.
Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. It may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant information. In this view, it cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant/applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. The privilege of the prearrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Apr 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 12 01:21:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7332/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail. Section 438 CrPC is to be invoked only in exceptional cases where the case alleged is frivolous or groundless. Anticipatory bail is to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy".
Having regard to nature of allegations and stage of investigations, held investigating agency must be given sufficient freedom in process of investigation. Appellant not entitled to anticipatory bail as the same would hamper the investigation"
17. Insofar as the submission on behalf of the applicant that in the present case, muddamal is recovered and therefore, no custodial interrogation is required is concerned, it is worthy to mention that herein, prima facie case is made out against the present applicant and there are serious allegations against the applicant that he used to receive and supply the liquor and he was in active contact with other accused and he has actively participated in the offence. Thus, in order to reach to a logical conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer deserves a free hand. There is no rule that if custodial interrogation is not required then anticipatory bail is required to be granted. The custodial interrogation is one of the good grounds to reject the anticipatory bail application. The applicant having seven past antecedents of similar nature.
18. This is not a case wherein the present applicant has arraigned as an accused based on the statement of the co- accused but there are sufficient material are collected. Hence, custodial interrogation is required. An anticipatory bail application cannot be claimed as a matter of right by invoking Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Apr 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 12 01:21:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7332/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined personal liberty, especially when it endangers societal interest. The applicant has seven past criminal records, and there is a likelihood that, if released on bail, he may misuse his liberty and indulge in further illegal activities. In view of the above decision and in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, custodial interrogation of not only the applicant, but all other suspect/s is therefore imperative to unearth the truth. Hence, this is a not a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the applicant.
19. Further, Gujarat is a dry State and pursuant to Article 47 of the Constitution of India, the directive principles of the State policy, it is the duty of the State to raise the standard of living and improve the public health and for the said purpose, prohibition of such intoxicating drugs being made compulsory in the Gujarat State. The State is committed to the ideas and principles of Father of Nation Shri Mahatma Gandhji and State also firmly intends to eradicate the menace of consuming liquor or intoxicating drugs to overhaul the law relating to intoxicating drugs and total prohibition in the State and for that amendments also being made in the Gujarat Prohibition Act. Considering the aforesaid fact, prima facie involvement being made out, no case is made out to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
20. For the foregoing reasons and considering the law laid down in the above cited decisions of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of view that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion under Section 482 of the BNSS in favour of the present applicant. Accordingly, present application does not deserve any consideration and is hereby dismissed.Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Apr 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 12 01:21:27 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7332/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined Rule is discharged.
21. It is made clear that the observations made in the present order are tentative in nature and the learned trial Court shall decide the case of the applicant on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made in the present order.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Apr 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 12 01:21:27 IST 2025