Ramesh @ Maical Jagubhai ... vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 6694 Guj

      R/CR.MA/8597/2021                               ORDER DATED: 22/06/2021




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 8597 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 : 22/06/2021
                               ORAL ORDER

1. The present application 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.11822021200370 of 2020 registered with Navsari Rural 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. It is the case of the prosecution in brief that the applicant and the co-accused were apprehended with carrying bottles of illegal IMFL (Indian Made Foreign Liquor) amounting to Rs.3,99,800/- without any pass permit in the Mahindra XUV car.

3. 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

R/CR.MA/8597/2021 ORDER DATED: 22/06/2021

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. Learned 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.1119702520200285 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 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.3,99,800/- and other articles amounting to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- It is also coming in the report that the applicant was piloting the car, which was seized with the aforesaid liquor an amounting to Rs.3,99,800/-. The investigation reveals that he is the main supplier of the aforesaid liquor. It also reveals that there are 23

R/CR.MA/8597/2021 ORDER DATED: 22/06/2021

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 Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 2011 SC 312, wherein the Apex Court has prescribed certain factors and parameters to be considered while considering the application for anticipatory bail. The said parameters includes :- "The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences."

10. From the aforesaid antecedents, there is all probability that the applicant will misuse the liberty.

11. Thus, the antecedents of the applicant as well as possibility of the co-accused indulging in the similar type of offences are the prime consideration for the purpose of considering the accused for grant of regular bail as well as anticipatory bail. When there are more than 20 offences registered against the present applicant under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, the same by itself is indicative that the accused is habitual, indulging in such types of prohibitory activities. This Court has noticed that there are rampant and wide spread activities with regard to the supplying and ferrying of illegal liquor in State of Gujarat. The accused brazenly, without any fear of law, is indulging in supplying, transporting and selling the illegal liquor. It appears from the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court granting anticipatory bail to the applicant in similar offences; the antecedents of the present applicant were not pointed out.

12. This Court finds that the trial court has not committed error in refusing to grant of anticipatory bail as the applicant is a habitual offender. The anticipatory bail, can be granted in exceptional

R/CR.MA/8597/2021 ORDER DATED: 22/06/2021

circumstances and facts and the same being extraordinary privilege, the judicial discretion has to be exercised after proper application of mind.

13. On the backdrop of the aforesaid observations and facts, this Court finds that the applicant is not worthy of grant of anticipatory bail and hence, the present application is rejected.

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) ABHISHEK