Gujarat High Court
Suryanarayan @ Samir ... vs State Of Gujarat on 2 February, 2023
Bench: Samir J. Dave
R/CR.MA/23394/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 23394 of 2022
==========================================================
SURYANARAYAN @ SAMIR RAMESHCHANDRA SHAHU
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
KRUSHALKUMAR D SHELADIYA(8017) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR R. C. KHODEKAR, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Date : 02/02/2023
ORAL ORDER
Leave to amend.
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of
notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. By way of the present application under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed to
release him on regular bail in connection with the FIR being I-CR
No.11212051210122 of 2021 registered with the Surat Railway
Police Station, District Surat City for the offences punishable
under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as
"NDPS Act").
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that
considering the nature of allegations, role attributed to the
applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by
imposing suitable conditions. That, investigation of the present
R/CR.MA/23394/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2023
offence has been completed and the investigating officer has filed
charge sheet against the present applicant. That, the applicant
has not played any role in the offence and police has arrested the
applicant as a suspect based on false information. That the
present applicant is not aware with the parcel which proposed to
delivery, and meanwhile the contraband seized from the present
applicant.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant further submits that the
applicant has deep roots in the society and is not likely to
abscond. That the applicant has no any criminal history. That the
applicant is not a habitual criminal. That, no recovery or
discovery of prohibited. That, the applicant has responsibility of
the family and is young in age and if kept in jail, his family is
likely to suffer a lot. Therefore, he has requested to enlarge the
applicant on regular bail. In support of his arguments, learned
advocate for the applicant has produced a copy of the judgment
passed in Criminal Petition no. 4428 of 2022 passed by learned
High Court for the State of Telangana.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf
of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking
to the nature and gravity of the offence. That, the applicant is
involved in the serious offence as alleged and therefore, no
leniency view would be taken in favour of the applicant while
R/CR.MA/23394/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2023
releasing him on bail. It is submitted that as per prosecution case,
the total quantity of contraband Ganja was 71.900 Kg, which is
also commercial quantity and out of which, 32.100 Kg
contraband Ganja has been recovered from the conscious
possession of the present applicant. That, considering the
quantity of the muddamal, it seems that the applicant is involved
in the serious offence which may affect the life of other persons
and if the applicant is released on regular bail, it is likely that he
may again involve himself in similar type of offence, may tamper
with the evidence of prosecution and may not be available
during trial and therefore, it is urged that no lenient view be
taken in favour of the applicant. Ultimately, it was submitted by
learned APP for the respondent-State to reject present
application.
6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and
perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the
facts of the case, it appears that the present application has been
filed by the applicant to release him on regular bail in case of his
arrest in connection with the FIR being I-CR
No.11212051210122 of 2021 registered with the Surat Railway
Police Station, District Surat City. It was further observed by
learned Sessions court that if the applicant is released on regular
bail, it is likely that he may again involve himself in similar type
R/CR.MA/23394/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2023
of offence, may tamper with the evidence of prosecution and
may not be available during trial. Not only that, the total quantity
of contraband Ganja was 71.900 Kg which is also commercial
quantity and out of which, 32.100 Kg contraband Ganja has
been recovered from the conscious possession of the present
applicant. It appears that the learned trial Court has refused to
grant regular bail to the present applicant keeping in mind the
provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which commence from
non-obstante clause. The operative part of the said section is in
the negative form prescribing the enlargement of bail to nay
person accused of commission of an offence under the Act,
unless the twin conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that
the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the
application and the second, is that the Court must be satisfied
that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not
guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions are not
satisfied, the ban for granting bail operates.
7. From the perusal of the FIR and the charge-sheet, it appears
that the applicant is wholly involved in the criminal conspiracy
i.e. in the illicit trafficking of narcotic and psychotropic
substances, which is a heinous crime against society at large,
spoiling the younger generation and causing tremendous
financial losses to the economy of the country. Hence, it appears
R/CR.MA/23394/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2023
that the applicant-accused has made a serious offence and
therefore, he is required in judicial custody, as there is prima
facie case against the present applicant.
8. This Court, is fully aware that the rule and law of bail but,
at the time of deciding the bail applications, the Court, have to
consider the gravity of offence as well as role played by the
applicant-accused in the offence. It appears that every case has
its own facts and circumstances and therefore, the citation
produced by the learned advocate for the applicant is not applied
in the present matter. In the present case, from the record
available and conclusion of the learned trial court, it can be seen
that a specific role has been played by the applicant and it clearly
emerges from the record itself that prima facie case is made out
against the present applicant. This Court, is not inclined to
exercise its discretion to grant regular bail, in disregard of the
magnitude and seriousness of the matter, as it may not only
hamper upon the investigation, but also convey adverse impact
on the society with regard to such economic offence.
9. In the result, this application is rejected. Rule stands
discharged.
(SAMIR J. DAVE,J)
K. S. DARJI
