Gujarat High Court
Sandip @ Ganesh Ashok Raut vs State Of Gujarat on 2 February, 2023
Bench: Samir J. Dave
R/CR.MA/1948/2023 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 1948 of 2023
==========================================================
SANDIP @ GANESH ASHOK RAUT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
S M KIKANI(7596) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR LB DABHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Date : 02/02/2023
ORAL ORDER
Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of
notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.
1. By way of the present application under Section 438
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has
prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest
in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.11219030220100 of
2022 registered with Saputara Police Station, District Dang for
the offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 15(b), 20(b) and
29 of NDPS Act, 1985.
2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the
nature of allegations are such for which custodial
interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the
R/CR.MA/1948/2023 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2023
applicant is available during the course of investigation and
will not flee from justice. That, applicant is ready and willing
to abide by all the conditions including imposition of
conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to
file an application before the competent Court for his remand.
He would further submit that upon filing of such application
by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant-accused to
oppose such application on merits may be kept open. If the
account of the applicant is seen then no any amount has been
deposited therein thus any record showing that the applicant is
doing sell of ganja has not come on record and no any
muddamal has been seized from the present applicant.
Ultimately, it was requested by learned advocate for the
applicant to allow present application.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of
anticipatory 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 releasing him on anticipatory
bail. That the applicant is having native of Maharashtra and if
he is released on anticipatory bail then there is every possibility
R/CR.MA/1948/2023 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2023
that he will not cooperate in the investigation. Ultimately, it
was submitted by learned APP for the respondent-State to reject
present application.
4. I have considered the allegations leveled against the
present applicant in the FIR and perused the papers of
investigation and considered the role played by the applicant.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perusing the record of the case and as per the affidavit
filed by the Investigating Officer in the proceeding of bail
application filed before the Court below, it appears that
learned Sessions court has observed while rejecting the bail
application that from the role played by the applicant in the
offence, it appears that he is the main accused since he had
supplied the contraband substance to Mohmmad Niyamat
Shaikh. The chargesheet has been filed on 9.11.2022 whereby,
the present applicant has been declared as absconding and
warrant under Section 70 of the Cr.P.C. has been issued and
because of that, learned Sessions court has not considered the
prayer of the applicant.
6. From the aforesaid discussion it can be seen that the
applicant has a played vital role in commission of offence and
if the gravity of offence can be seen then it can affect the
R/CR.MA/1948/2023 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2023
society at large. Thus, both the important ingredients can be
considered at the time of deciding the anticipatory bail
application and of course, this court is conscious about the
social impact about such kind of offence. Not only that, from
the record it appears that the applicant was absconded for
more time and thus, his such conduct can be considered while
deciding the bail application.
7. In case of Prahlad SIngh Bhati versus N.C.T. Delhi and
another reported in 2001 AIR SCW 1263, has observed as
under in para 8 of the report :
"8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on
the basis of well settled principles having regard to the
circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary
manner. While granting the bail, the Court has to keep in
mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in
support thereof, the severity of the punishment which
conviction will entail, the character, behaviour means
and standing of the accused, circumstances which are
peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing
the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the
larger interests of the public or State and similar other
considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the
R/CR.MA/1948/2023 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2023
purpose of granting the bail, the Legislature has used the
words 'reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the
evidence" which means the court dealing with grant of
bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine
case against the accused and that the prosecution will be
able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the
charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the
evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt."
8. Therefore, considering the law which has been laid
down by the apex court and considering the averments made
in the complaint filed by the original complainant and after
considering the observations made by the learned sessions
judge concerned, as per my view, this is not the case where the
discretion should be exercised in favour of the applicant for
anticipatory bail. Therefore, this application is required to be
rejected.
9. Before parting with this judgment, it is hereby clarified
that the aforesaid observations made in this order have been
made for the purpose of considering the present application for
anticipatory bail. Therefore, same shall not come in the way of
the trial court for considering the application that may be filed
R/CR.MA/1948/2023 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2023
by the applicant for regular bail or at the time of trial and the
trial court concerned shall not be influenced by the
observations made hereinabove.
In the result, this application is rejected. Rule Stands
discharged.
(SAMIR J. DAVE,J)
K. S. DARJI
