Gujarat High Court
Raval Ravikumar Rajubhai vs State Of Gujarat on 20 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3610/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 3610
of 2025
==========================================================
RAVAL RAVIKUMAR RAJUBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR POOJAN V BAHRANI(12056) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SIDDHARTH ANAND(12031) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HK PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 20/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1) The present bail application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS") for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11199038240312 OF 2024 registered with Nabipur Police Station, Dist. Bharuch, for the offence under the provisions of the Prohibition Act.
2) Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for respondent - State of Gujarat.
3) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that, the applicant has been falsely enroped in the offence. He is not named in FIR, but at the instance of co-accused, he is arraigned as an accused. Nothing is required to be recovered from the applicant. Muddamal is already recovered. However, the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation. Therefore, present application deserves consideration.
4) Ld. APP appearing for the State has opposed the present application on the ground that the applicant is very much involved in the offence. Further, the applicant is having three similar type of past Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 24 21:42:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3610/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2025 undefined antecedents. Though he knows very well that, there is prohibition of liquor in the Gujarat, he brought it in the State of Gujarat and supplied to various places in the State. If he is released on bail, then possibility cannot be ruled out to indulge again in such type of illegal activities and his custodial interrogation is required to cull out the truth from where he brought and from whom, he has received and to whom it is to be supplied. Therefore, present application does not deserve any consideration.
5) Perusing the investigation papers, it appears that the applicant is a supplier and had supplied the contraband liquor from Mumbai and Daman to various parts in the State of Gujarat though he is very well aware that Gujarat is a dry State and law of prohibition does exist. Further, the applicant is having similar nature of three past antecedents. Though his name is not in the FIR, but during investigation, his role is surfaced and arraigned as an accused. Some of the accused are yet to be arrested.
6) During the course of investigation and interrogation of other accused, it reveals that, the applicant has brought the contraband muddamal through accused Jaydev and instructed to supply it to accused Faizal and while carrying the said muddamal in Pick up vehicle bearing Reg. No.GJ-15-AV-7319, caught red handed by the police.
7) 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 Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 24 21:42:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3610/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2025 undefined 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 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..."
8) 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....."
9) 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 two 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.
10)The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jigneshkumar Maheshbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat has 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 Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 24 21:42:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3610/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 24 21:42:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3610/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2025 undefined 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."
11)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 of the applicant is attributed as a supplier 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.
12)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.
13)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:-
Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 24 21:42:08 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3610/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2025 undefined "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 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."
14)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."
15)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 has supplied 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 but merely because custodial interrogation is not required, itself is not a ground to allow the anticipatory bail application. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine (SC) 1529, wherein it is observed and held as follows:
Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 24 21:42:08 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3610/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2025 undefined "In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail."
16)In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Lavesh vs. (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 730 and Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in 2024 SCC Online (SC) 282, it is observed that when an accused is absconding and is declared as proclaimed offender, there is no question of giving him a benefit of Section 482 of the BNSS. Further, the applicant is having past antecedents and Section 70 warrant has been issued against the applicant and if he grants bail, possibility cannot be ruled out to indulge in similar type of illegal activities. Further keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre V/s State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694, this is not a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the applicant.
17)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.
18)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 Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 24 21:42:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3610/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2025 undefined 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.
19)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. Rule is discharged.
20)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) SUCHIT Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 24 21:42:08 IST 2025