Gujarat High Court
Gohil Mansang @ Pintu Narubha ... vs State Of Gujarat on 28 October, 2021
Bench: Ashokkumar C. Joshi
R/CR.MA/19050/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/10/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 19050 of 2021
==========================================================
GOHIL MANSANG @ PINTU NARUBHA JAMBHA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
A R SHAH(7768) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RAJESH B SHAH(10891) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. MONALI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
Date : 28/10/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. This Application is filed by the Applicant - Accused under Section 439
of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail
in connection with C.R. No. 11217036210707 registered with Varahi Police
Station, District Patan for the offences punishable under Sections 308, 379,
427, 120B, 34, 411, 413 of Indian Penal Code, Sections 15(2), 15(4), 16A of
the Petroleum And Minerals Pipelines Act 1962, Section 3 of the Prevention of
Damages To Public Property Act, Section 4 of Explosive Substance Act and
Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act.
2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. A.R.Shah for the Applicant and learned
APP Ms. Monali Bhatt for the Respondent State.
3. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule for the Respondent State of
Gujarat.
4. The facts of the cased in nutshell are that on 20.8.2021 police received a
secret information that in area of Varahi Police Station, certain people are
R/CR.MA/19050/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/10/2021
carrying on illegal activity of selling and stealing of crude oil. That one hotel
was newly constructed on the agriculture land from where the crude oil
pipeline was passing and on its inspection it is revealed that the pipe is
connected with another pipeline with the main pipe and had stolen the crude oil
and thereafter on interrogation of the co-accused, it is revealed that the present
Applicant is the purchaser of the said crude oil.
Submission of the Parties:
5. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has vehemently and fervently
argued that in the present case stolen crude oil was alleged to have been found
from the co-accused in the hotel where the present Applicant has purchased the
the same without the knowledge that the crude oil is stolen one. Further it is
also urged that the co-accused from whom he has purchased the oil was already
having three antecedents of the same nature but the present Applicant has no
antecendent and he has no knowledge about the stolen crude oil from whom he
has purchased the crude oil. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted
that at the most punishment under Section 411 of the Petroleum and Minerals
Pipelines Act is 3 years. He has fairly submitted that the learned Magistrate
has rejected the application on the basis of insertion of new Section. Learned
Advocate for the Applicant / Accused has further submitted that the Applicant
Accused is innocent as he has not taken part in the offence as alleged. He has
family roots in the society and therefore, he is not likely to flee away from
justice. That he will abide by whatever conditions imposed by the Hon'ble
Court. He has further vehemently submitted that there is no direct involvement
of the Applicant Accused in the present case so far as allegation is concerned.
There are no antecedents against the Applicant Accused. He has therefore
prayed that discretion may kindly be exercised and grant bail to the Applicant
Accused.
6. Per contra, learned APP has vehemently argued that though there is no
antecedent, but, since the offence is against the national property, which is a
R/CR.MA/19050/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/10/2021
great loss to the government and therefore no such conspiracy may be
permitted also when the investigation is under process and the charge sheet is
also not filed. The learned APP has also submitted that it is not a small amount
but the greater amount is involved. The learned APP has therefore submitted
that discretion may not be exercised and ultimately the learned APP has
opposed grant of bail looking to the nature and gravity of offence, involvement
of the Applicant / Accused. The learned APP has further submitted that if the
Hon'ble Court is inclined to grant bail then in such case strict conditions may
be imposed to secure the presence of the Applicant Accused.
Merits of the Case:
7. This court has considered the following aspects:
(a) That even if it is a prima facie case, then also as such there is no
antecedent.
(b) Further as per catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, there are
mainly 3 factors which are required to be considered by this court i.e. prima
facie case, availability of Applicant accused at the time of trial and tampering
and hampering with the witnesses by the accused.
(c) That the learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the
Applicant Accused is not likely to flee away.
(d) That the Applicant Accused is in custody since August 2021.
(e) The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay
Chandra v. C.B.I. Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, wherein it is held that bail is
a rule and jail is an exception.
8. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the
record produced in this case as well as taking into consideration the facts of the
case, nature of allegations, gravity of accusation, availability of the Applicant
Accused at the time of Trial etc. and the role attributed to the present Applicant
accused, the present Application deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands
allowed. Moreover, pursuant to the FIR and the arguments advanced by both
R/CR.MA/19050/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/10/2021
the sides, including the judgment passed by both the courts below upon which
the learned APP has relied, it prima facie transpires that the role attributed to
the present Applicant accused is under Section 411 of the Petroleum and
Minerals Pipelines Act where the maximum punishment is three years.
Moreover, it is also to be seen that the Applicant is aged 40 years having no
antecedents as such and has no antisocial activity. The Applicant Accused -
GOHIL MANSANG @ PINTU NARUBHA JAMBHA is ordered to be
released on regular bail in connection with C.R. No. 11217036210707
registered with Varahi Police Station, District Patan on executing a personal
bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the trial Court, subject to the following conditions that he shall:
(a) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the
evidence.
(b) maintain law and order and not to indulge in any criminal activities.
(c) furnish the documentary proof of complete, correct and present address of
his residence to the Investigating Officer and to the Trial Court at the time of
executing the bond and shall not change his residence without prior permission
of the trial Court.
(d) provide his contact numbers as well as the contact numbers of the sureties
before the Trial Court. In case of change in such numbers inform in writing
immediately to the trial Court.
(e) file an affidavit stating his immovable properties whether self acquired or
ancestral with description, location and present value of such properties before
the Trial Court, if any.
(f) not leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court
(g) mark presence before the concerned police station on every 1st day of
English calendar month between 12:00 Noon and 2:00 PM till one year or till
the trial is concluded, whichever is earlier.
R/CR.MA/19050/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/10/2021
(h) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week. If he does
not possess passport, he shall file an Affidavit to that effect.
(i) shall maintain all the rules and regulations framed by the Municipality
regarding contemporary status of corona virus/Covid-19, State Government or
by any competent authority, including social distancing.
9. Bail bond to be executed before the Trial Court having jurisdiction to try the
case. It would be open for the Trial Court concerned to give time to furnish the
solvency certificate if prayed for.
10. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Trial Court
concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action according to
law. The Authorities will release the Applicant forthwith only if he is not
required in connection with any other offence for the time being.
11. At the trial, the concerned trial Court shall not be influenced by the
prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
12. Rule is made absolute. The Registry is directed to communicate this
order by Fax / by E-mail to the concerned Court / Authority.
(A. C. JOSHI,J)
J.N.W
