Rughnathram Laduji Jivaji Visnoi ... vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 18622 Guj

      R/CR.MA/18548/2021                         ORDER DATED: 21/12/2021




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

          R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 18548 of 2021

==========================================================
              RUGHNATHRAM LADUJI JIVAJI VISNOI (GILA)
                            Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TUSHAR CHAUDHARY(5316) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS CM SHAH ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI

                           Date : 21/12/2021

                            ORAL ORDER

This application is filed praying for an order of regular bail post submission of charge-sheet in connection with offence registered at C.R.No.11195018210713 registered with Dhanera Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 17(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act').

Mr.Tushar Chaudhary, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is found in possession of 409 grams of opium juice which is less than commercial quantity and higher than the small quantity and therefore, rigors of Section 37 of 'the Act' recording satisfaction that there are reasonable ground believing that he is not guilty of such offence would not be there. Therefore, he has submitted that for the intermediary quantity of the opium juice maximum sentence which can be imposed upon the applicant would be 10 years and therefore, he has prayed that the applicant be released on bail, that too, post submission of charge-sheet.

R/CR.MA/18548/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/12/2021

Mr.Chaudhary, learned advocate for the applicant relying on order passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in a matter of co-accused who is being prosecuted along with applicant submitted that applicant may also be released on bail.

As against that, Ms.C.M. Shah, learned APP for the Respondent-State submitted that though quantity appears to be intermediary, the applicant who is in habit of committing such offences, cannot be released on bail since sentence which can be awarded upon the applicant is upto 10 years. At the same time, she has submitted that not only this offence but in adjoining State i.e. State of Rajasthan, a case under 'the Act' came to be registered against him in Hathuniya Police Station, Rajasthan State. Therefore, it is submitted that the applicant deals in the narcotic drug and considering the seriousness of the offence, applicant be refused bail.

Having heard the learned advocates for the appearing parties as also considering the papers of investigation, it is clear that the applicant deals in drugs, that too, opium. Not only for the first time but he was prosecuted for the very same offence in the State of Rajasthan where according to the submission of Mr.Chaudhary, learned advocate for the applicant he came to be acquitted vide an order dated 22.3.2018 in Special Sessions Case No.20 of 2014. The copy of the said judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court is also produced for the perusal of the court. On perusing the aforesaid judgment, there also, he was to receive the quantity of opium which was again 400 grams from the co-accused at his own Hotel at Rajasthan. However, further perusal of the aforesaid judgment produced by

R/CR.MA/18548/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/12/2021

the learned advocate for the applicant, it is clear that the very co-accused, namely, Kailashchandra, according to his own statement in that case, supplied opium on earlier occasion to the very present applicant and thus, it is clear that he deals in narcotic drugs, may be for want of evidence or other material, he might have been acquitted of the charge. But fact remains that his permanent place of abode is also not clear. As recorded in the order passed by the Sessions Court, Rajasthan, where applicant is acquitted of the same charge, though his local address is given as address of the State of Gujarat shown to be Opposite H.P. Petrol Pump, Deesa whereas, in the present case, the applicant, who is found in the possession of 409 grams of opium, no local address of Gujarat is mentioned even in his application. Though, co-accused is released on bail who was not found in possession of any narcotic drug where he was to receive the same through the present applicant who deals in narcotic drug and therefore, even if co-accused is released on bail, it may not help, in any manner, the present applicant. Thus, it is clear that there is clandestine activities by the present applicant, that too, dealing in narcotic drugs having criminal antecedents, which might have ended in acquittal, the present applicant cannot be released on bail by exercising the discretion in his favour and therefore, this application is rejected.

(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J) ASHISH M. GADHIYA