Gujarat High Court
Babubhai Vahtabhai @ Vohtabhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 27 January, 2021
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
R/CR.MA/15014/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 15014 of 2020
==========================================================
BABUBHAI VAHTABHAI @ VOHTABHAI DESAI (RABARI)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR N D NANAVATY, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR JAIVIK UDAY BHATT,
ADVOCATE FOR NANAVATY ADVOCATES(1373) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MITESH AMIN, APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 27/01/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. This application is filed by the applicant under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
for regular bail in connection with FIR registered as
CRI/11195018200081 /2020 with Dhanera Police
Station, Banaskantha for the offence punishable under
Sections 15(C) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
2. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
applicant submits that considering the nature of
offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular
bail by imposing suitable conditions.
3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respondentState has
opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature
and gravity of the offence.
R/CR.MA/15014/2020 ORDER
4. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the
respective parties do not press for a further
reasoned order.
5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on
behalf of the respective parties and perused the
papers. Following aspects are considered :
I) The FIR is registered on 06.02.2020 for the
offence which took place on 06.02.2020.
II) The applicant is in custody since 07.07.2020.
III) Investigation is concluded and chargesheet is
filed.
IV) Submissions of learned advocate for the
applicant that even from the chargesheet, it appears
that there is no evidence to connect the applicant
with the present offence. Learned advocate for the
applicant drew attention of this Court to the
contents of the FIR itself, wherein it is narrated
that the applicant was not even residing at the place
where the raid was carried out and it was only co
accused Ashokkumar Devidas Sadhu, who was present and
in whose conscious possession the narcotic substance
was found. He drew attention of this Court to the
statement of one Narpatsinh dated 17.03.2020 to
indicate that the premises was rented premises and
the same was rented to the coaccused Ashokkumar
Devidas Sadhu.
V) Submissions of learned advocate for the
applicant that along with chargesheet, statement of
coaccused Ashokkumar Devida Sadhu is also supplied
wherein it is stated that the applicant was employed
by him on salary of Rs.7,000/ /4,000/.
VI) Submissions of learned advocate for the applicant
that statement of applicant himself indicate that the
applicant was employed under the coaccused at the
R/CR.MA/15014/2020 ORDER
relevant time. It is submitted that however, the
applicant had left the services four months prior to
the raid and was not anymore in connection with the
coaccused nor was present on the premises where the
raid was carried out. He placed reliance placed on
the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Tofan Singh
Vs. State of TamilNadu passed by the Apex Court
reported in (2013) 16 SCC 31).
VII) Submissions of learned advocate for the
applicant that there are no past antecedents of the
applicant. Hence, no reason to believe that applicant
will indulge in similar offence in future.
VIII) Primafacie, reasonable ground exists to
believe that the applicant is not guilty.
IX) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor under the
instructions of the Investigating Officer is unable
to bring on record any special circumstances against
the applicant.
6. This Court has taken into consideration the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the nature of the allegations made
against the applicant in the First Information
Report, without discussing the evidence in detail,
prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this
is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge
the applicant on regular bail.
8. Hence, the present application is allowed. The
applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail
R/CR.MA/15014/2020 ORDER
in connection with CRI/11195018200081 /2020 with
Dhanera Police Station, Banaskantha on executing a
personal bond of Rs.10,000/= (Rupees Ten Thousand
Only) with one surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the
conditions that he shall;
(a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse
liberty;
(b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of
the prosecution;
(c) surrender passport, if any, to the lower Court
within a week;
(d) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior
permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;
(e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station
on alternate Monday of every English calendar month
for a period of six months between 11.00 a.m. and
2.00 p.m.;
(f) furnish the present address of his residence to
the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at
the time of execution of the bond and shall not
change the residence without prior permission of this
Court;
9. The authorities will release the applicant only
if he is not required in connection with any other
offence for the time being. If breach of any of the
above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge
concerned will be free to issue warrant or take
appropriate action in the matter.
10. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court
having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open
R/CR.MA/15014/2020 ORDER
for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or
relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with
law.
11. At the trial, the trial Court shall not be
influenced by the observations of preliminary nature
qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court
while enlarging the applicant on bail.
12. The application is allowed in the aforesaid
terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. Direct Service is permitted.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
GIRISH
