Gujarat High Court
Paraskumar S/O Likhmaram Jat vs State Of Gujarat on 27 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1046/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 1046 of 2025
==========================================================
PARASKUMAR S/O LIKHMARAM JAT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
CHIRAG A PRAJAPATI(8468) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 27/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-original accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered at Palanpur Taluka Police Station, Dist. Banaskantha, being C.R No.11195035200312 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 482 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under the provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely roped in the offence. Nothing is recovered from the accused. The applicant has no past antecedent. The applicant was not found at the spot, but on the statement made by the co-accused, he has been arraigned as an accused. He further submitted that, whatever the allegation of forging of number plate and affixed on the vehicle is against the accused No.1. He further submitted that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant undertakes that he will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 28 21:44:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1046/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2025 undefined
4. Per contra, learned APP has vehemently opposed the application and submitted that the present applicant is involved in the offence. The applicant and other co-accused have rubbed the chasis number of the car and affixed forged number plates on the car, in which contraband 865 tins of Beer were recovered. He also submitted that, when the car of the accused was intercepted, the accused No.1 was caught red handed and present applicant fled away from the spot and since then i.e. since 2020, he is remained absconded and still he is out of reach. Considering his conduct, custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, as there is a possibility of tampering of evidence and evasion of interrogation of the accused. The accused, who is directly connected with the crime, which have significantly affected the society, may try to evade interrogation. He, therefore, submits that the application be dismissed.
5. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides and considered the material placed on record. It is important to note that, upon secret information, the police personnel intercepted the car of the accused, carrying contraband beer tins worth of Rs.1,08,000/- and caught red handed accused No.1. Further, the police agency found that the number plate affixed on the car was forged and also rubbed the chasis number to misguide the ownership. Further, the offence is of the year 2020 and since the, the applicant has remained absconded and now he has filed present application for anticipatory bail.
6. The criteria to grant anticipatory bail and regular bail has been laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions. While criminal administration of justice disturbed, arrest is a part of investigation. After the arrest of the accused when substantial part of the investigation including remand gets over, then the Court has to exercise jurisdiction considering the evidence collected during investigation. It is needless to Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 28 21:44:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1046/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2025 undefined say that Section 438 of the Code is pre-arrest bail as there is a part of investigation and importance of the arrest is time and again discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. When the involvement of the accused is prima facie revealed and if allegation is not levelled that to defame him or to tarnish his image, the Court has to exercise jurisdiction, but to seek anticipatory bail is not an extraordinary jurisdiction and absolute right of the accused.
7. Now coming back to the facts of the present case and looking to the material placed on record, it clearly transpires that the applicant fled away from the spot and remained absconder since 2020. Even otherwise, considering the facts and conduct of the applicant, no case is made out to extend anticipatory bail when the applicant was also carrying contraband beer in the car along with the accused No.1 and it was very much within the knowledge of the applicant that Gujarat being a dry state and fled away from the spot since 2020. From such conduct, his involvement is revealed and therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out to flee away from justice.
8. In this background facts, this Court prima facie is of considered view that, there is a reasonable ground to believe that the applicant has committed the alleged offence. Considering the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the applicant herein has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. If the anticipatory bail as sought for is granted, then it will affect the investigation of the case. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is required.
9. 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 Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 28 21:44:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1046/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2025 undefined 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."
10. The coordinate Bench of this Court in a case of Jigneshkumar Maheshbhai Patel vs State of Gujarat, (Criminal Misc. Application No.3122 of 2018) 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 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 Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 28 21:44:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1046/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2025 undefined 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 pee-trial detention. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require denial of bail, it has to be denied"
11. Further, in the case of Pratibha Manchanda vs The State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2023 SC 3307, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Para 19 as under:
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."
12. 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.
13. 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 applicant. Accordingly, present application does not deserve any consideration and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. It is made clear that this Court has not delve into the merits of the matter and the views expressed in the order are prima facie only.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) SUCHIT Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 28 21:44:30 IST 2025