Ramesh @ Maical Jagubhai ... vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 6530 Guj

R/CR.MA/8466/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 8466 of 2021
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 8490 of 2021

 

 

RAMESH @ MAICAL JAGUBHAI BHAGVANJI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT

 

 

Appearance:

MR NIRAV C THAKKAR(2206) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2

MS MOXA THAKKER, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

 

 

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

Date : 21/06/2021
COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. Criminal Misc. Application No.8466 of 2021 has been filed seeking bail under the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with an FIR _ being C.R.No.11822009201724 of 2020 registered with Chikhli Police Station, District Navsari for the offence punishable under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 116-B, 81 and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

2. Criminal Misc. Application No.8490 of 2021 has been filed seeking bail under the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with an FIR _ being C.R.No.11823021210098 of 2021 registered with Sagbara Police Station, District Narmada for the offence punishable under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 116-B, 81, 83 and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

3. The brief facts of the case in Criminal Misc. Application No.8466

of 2021 are as under:-

3.1. It is the case of the prosecution in brief that the applicant along

with other co-accused were apprehended with carrying bottles of illegal

Page lof 4

R/CR.MA/8466/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021

IMFL (Indian Made Foreign Liquor) amounting to Rs.3,16,800/- without any pass permit in the Bolero pickup car bearing registration No.GJ-06- AV-0243.

4. The brief facts of the case in Criminal Misc. Application No.8490

of 2021 are as under:-

4.1. The accused no.1 was caught carrying the bottles of illegal liquor amounting to Rs.29,64,080/- without any pass permit in the Eicher Truck bearing registration No.PB-11-AG-8969.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Nirav Thakkar for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been arraigned as an accused on the statement of the co-accused and suspicion and there is no evidence directly or indirectly showing the involvement of the present applicant in the offence. He has submitted that the applicant is the resident of Union Territory, Daman and he is residing there with his family and is carrying out the business of liquor at Daman and holding a valid licence. It is submitted that the applicant is roped in the offence without there being

any evidence in this regard.

5.1. Leamed advocate Mr.Thakkar has further submitted that another offence registered against the applicant at Karjan Police Station under the Prohibition Act being C.R. No.119702520200285 of 2020 and C.R. No.11197025201183 of 2020, the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.03.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.4924 of 2021 and Criminal Misc. Application No.5509 of 2021 respectively, has released the applicant on anticipatory bail. He has also placed reliance on

the license, which is issued to the present applicant.

6. Vehemently opposing the aforesaid submissions, learned APP has

R/CR.MA/8466/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021

submitted that the applicant has 23 antecedents of similar nature. It is submitted that the applicant is not cooperating with the Investigating Officer and he is absconding. She has submitted that the applicant is the main supplier and he has supplied the liquor in the State of Gujarat where the same is prohibited. She has submitted that looking to the past antecedents, the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail as he would

likely misuse the same.

7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective

parties.

8. The aforementioned FIRs reveal that the applicant has allegedly supplied the liquor amounting to Rs.3,16,800/- and Rs.29,64,080/- It is also coming in the report that the applicant was piloting the car, which was seized with the aforesaid liquor an amount of Rs.29,64,080/-. The investigation reveals that he is the main supplier of the aforesaid liquor. It

is also reveal that there are 23 antecedents of the present applicant.

9. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sii¢dharam Sathneanpa Mihetre vs State of Maharastra, ATR 2011 SC 312, wherein the Apex Court has prescribed certain factors and parameters to be considered while considering the application for anticipatory ball. The said parameters includes :- "The possibility of the accused's Likelihood to repeat similar ar

the ather offences,"

19. From the aforesaid antecedents, there is all probability that the

applicant would misuse the liberty.

ii. Thus, the antecedents of the applicant as well as possibility of the

co-accused indulging in the similar type of offences are the prime

Page 3o0f 4

R/CR.MA/8466/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021

consideration for the purpose of considering the accused for grant of regular bail as well as anticipatory hail. When there are more than 20 offences registered against the present applicant under the Gujarat Prohibition Aci, the sarne by iself is indicative that the accused is habitual indulging in such types of prohibitory activities. This Court has noticed that there are rampant and wie spread activities with regard to the supplying and ferrying of legal liquor in State of Gujarat. The accused brazenly without any fear of law are indulging in suppliving, transporting and selling the illegal Liquor. ff appears from the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court granting anticipatory ball to the applicant in similar offences: the antecedents of the present applicants

were not pointed out.

12. This Court finds that the trial court has not committed error in refusing fo grant of anfiicipatory bail as the applicant is a habitual offender. The anticipatory bail can be granted in exceptional circumstances and facts and the same being extraordinary privilege, the

judicial discretion has to be exercised after proper application of mind. i3. On the backdrop of the aforesaid observations and facts, this Court

finds that the applicant is mot worthy of grant of anticipatory bail and

hence, the present applications are rejected.

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) ABHISHEK

Page 4of 4