Gujarat High Court
Sufiyan Abdulhamid Ahmad ... vs State Of Gujarat on 12 January, 2023
Bench: Samir J. Dave
R/CR.MA/523/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 523 of 2023
==========================================================
SUFIYAN ABDULHAMID AHMAD PAWASKAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
FOUZAN N SONIWALA(8442) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Date : 12/01/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of
notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. By way of the present application under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - original
accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case
of his arrest in connection with the FIR being CR NO.
11202008211918 OF 2021 registered with Jamnagar City "A"
Division Police Station, Jamnagar for the offence punishable
under Sections 8©, 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the
entire complaint does not disclose any ingredient to link the
applicant with the alleged offence in question. nature of
allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this
R/CR.MA/523/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2023
stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during
the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In
view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory
bail. 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. Ultimately, it was requested by
learned advocate for the applicant to allow present application.
4. 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. Ultimately, it was submitted by learned APP for the
respondent-State to reject present application.
5. 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.
R/CR.MA/523/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2023
6. It appears from the conclusion made by the learned
Sessions court while rejecting the anticipatory bail application
of the applicant that from the affidavit filed by the
investigating officer, it is found that during the interrogation of
the co-accused Fahim, it was disclosed that mudamal has been
delivered by the applicant and applicant is one part of chain of
persons through which contraband was transported and
interrogation of the applicant is required.
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
R/CR.MA/523/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2023
considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the
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 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/523/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2023
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
