Gujarat High Court
Bhagirathbhai Chandulal Humbal vs State Of Gujarat on 4 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6748/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 6748
of 2025
==========================================================
BHAGIRATHBHAI CHANDULAL HUMBAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ZUBIN BHARDA, FOR MR. KISHAN H DAIYA(6929) for the Applicant(s)
No. 1
MR HK PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 04/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
(1) By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS"), the applicant-
accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in
connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11189005242394 of 2024
registered with Morbi Taluka Police Station, Morbi, for the
offences punishable under Sections 303 (1), 316(3), 316(4), 317(1),
317(2), 317(4), 318(3), 61(2)(A) and 54 of BNS.
(2) Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has
nothing to do with the offence. The applicant was not present at the
place. He has been arraigned as an accused merely based on the
statement of the co-accused alleging that the applicant along with
other accused hired godown on rent and in connivance with each
other, brought the trucks carrying PCI coal to the godown and
replaced it by mixing lower quality of coal. The stocks already
recovered by the police. The applicant and co-accused Chiragbhai
Dudani are the partners the said godown, except this, no role is
attributed. No any loss caused to the complainant/witnesses. No any
evidence or proof suggests the involvement of the applicant in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6748/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
offence. Nothing is required to be recovered from the applicant.
Therefore, custodial interrogation at this 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.
(3) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
respondent - State has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, citing
the nature and gravity of the offence. It has been submitted that the
applicant, along with other accused, is involved in the theft of high-
quality PCI coal. The applicant is identified as the mastermind and
kingpin of the entire scam, operating the scheme across different
districts. He is actively abetting the co-accused in managing the
affairs of the scam and has been on run since the date of registration
of the offence. Further, it has been submitted that a Look Out
Circular has been issued against the applicant. The present bail
application has been prepared and notarized in Tanzania, which
indicates that the applicant has fled from India. Additionally, his
passport has been canceled. In another offence, the applicant had
settled the dispute within one month and got quashed FIR against
him through consent, demonstrating his potential to influence
investigation and tamper with evidence. As the investigation is still
ongoing, prima facie involvement of the applicant is evident. Hence,
the application does not merit any consideration.
(4) Having heard the learned counsel for both sides and perusing the
material placed on record, it appears that initially, co-accused Chirag
Dudabhai Patel and other co-accused were granted bail as the
investigation was at an initial stage, and their prima facie involvement
had not been revealed. However, during the course of the
investigation, another Investigating officer conducted investigation,
recorded statements, and collected material that indicates sufficient
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6748/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
evidence of the applicant's involvement. The applicant is identified as
a main conspirator who has with the intent of personal financial gain,
orchestrated the scam in collusion with the co-accused for such illegal
activity. The accused hired a godown on rent and managed directly to
bring imported coal from Kandla Port by coordinating with truck
owners and drivers dishonestly to his godown. For monetary benefits,
they unloaded higher-quality coal by mixing it with inferior-quality
coal and reloaded the goods. This fraudulent activity resulted in
financial loss to the original owner of the coal, prompting the filing of
the FIR. Statements of the victims, who were going to receive the
coal, along with invoices and bills from Jindal Saw Limited and CJ
Darshal, have been recorded. Sufficient evidence has been collected,
including the fact that to mislead the police, the accused affixed
forged number plates on trucks that had been seized by the police
and already were kept at Morbi Taluka Police Station. They
subsequently used these trucks to transport PCI coal to Jindal Saw
Ltd. at Village Pur, Bhilwara, Rajasthan. During the investigation,
Sections 228, 229, 336(2), and 340(2) of the BNS Act were added. To
conceal the transportation of the said materials, the accused has also
used forged number plates as genuine ones and transported inferior-
quality PCI coal instead of the higher-quality imported coal. The role
of the present applicant has been implicated in the offence from the
very beginning.
(5) It further reveals that the accused Bhavesh C. Pranjivanbhai Sersia
(Patel), who was arrested from the godown hired by the petitioner-
accused and the main accused, created a Whats App group named
"Gala Plot" on his mobile phone. As part of a criminal conspiracy with
the main accused to steal mineral coal from the godown, he extracted
high-quality coal when a truck trailer loaded with such coal entered
the premises. He mixed the high-quality coal with inferior-quality coal
and soil, reweighed the mixture, and sent the details of the stored
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6748/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
and stolen coal to small traders through the "Gala Plot" Whats App
group. This activity has been captured in the Panchanama through a
screenshot of the Whats App chat.
(6) During the raid at the godown, two truck- tailors loaded with stolen
mineral coal and low quality coal / clay kept separately worth of
Rs.2,10,72,000/-, two trailor truck worth of Rs.80,00,000/-, 2 loader
tractor worth of Rs.15,00,000/-, 1 Hitachi Machine worth of
Rs.20,00,000/-, 2 four wheeler cars worth of Rs.25,00,000/-, 2
motorcycles worth of Rs.50,000/-, cash money of Rs.2,41,175/-, 17
mobiles worth of Rs.3,50,000/- and thereby, total muddamal worth of
Rs.3,57,16,175/- recovered from the godown, which was taken by the
applicant and his partner on rent of Rs.50,000/- p.m.
(7) The applicant has been on the run since the registration of the FIR.
The Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) has reported that
the applicant is currently in Uganda. A Lookout Circular (LOC) was
issued on 24.01.2025, and the LOC has also been opened by the
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. Upon
reviewing the Call Detail Records (CDR), it is evident that the
applicant has been in constant contact with the other accused.
Despite the cancellation of his passport, he managed to flee the
country. Therefore, to uncover the truth and ascertain the applicant's
involvement in the entire scam, custodial interrogation is necessary.
(8) Although the applicant is outside the country, he continues to exert
influence and able to manage affairs within the country from outside
the country. Furthermore, a complaint was subsequently registered
for an extortion offense, which was quashed following the filing of a
consent quashing petition before this court. The fact that the
applicant remains capable of influencing witnesses even while abroad
clearly demonstrates his potential to interfere with the investigation.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6748/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
Hence, where prima facie involvement is established, the accused is
not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail.
(9) So far as contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant as
regards applicant being entitled to get the benefit of parity is
concerned, co-accused Chirag Dudabhai Patel and other co-accused
were granted bail as the investigation was at an initial stage, and
their prima facie involvement had not been established. However,
during the course of the investigation, new Investigating officer took
over the charge, recorded statements, and collected material that
indicates sufficient evidence of the applicant's involvement and
hence, under the pretext of other accused being considered by this
court is not a ground to allow the present application or extend the
benefit of parity. In view of law laid down by the Apex Court in case
of Tarun Kumar Vs. Asst. Director, Directorate of Enforcement,
2023 INSC 1006, accused cannot seek bail merely co-accused is
granted bail. Therefore, considering the different role of the co-
accused than the present applicant, benefit of parity cannot be
extended to the applicant. Further, the applicant is absconder and
warrant under Section 70 of CRPC and LOC came to be issued, he is
not entitled for anticipatory bail considering the flight risk.
(10) In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of State
of Haryana vs. Dharamraj reported in 2023 INSC 784, Lavesh vs.
(NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 730, State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 171, Srikant
Upadhyay Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 282
and Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar reported in 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 955, it has been held that, power exercisable under
Section 438 of the Code is somewhat extraordinary in character and it
is to be exercised only in exceptional cases where it appears that the
person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6748/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely
to otherwise misuse his liberty. Normally, when the accused is
'absconding' and declared as a 'proclaimed offender', there is no
question of granting anticipatory bail even in case of business
transactions or offence merely registered under Sections 406, 420,
467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
(11) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash Singh Vs State of
Bihar & Anr. reported in 2012 4 SCC 379, has been pleased to hold as
under:-
"Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offences are required to
be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the
reasons therefore. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional
circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has
falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty."
(12) It is appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered
in case of Pratibha Manchand Vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR
2023 SC 3307, wherein the Apex Court has observed thus:-
"19. The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding individual
rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of
arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents
challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the
interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance
between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While
the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also
consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a
fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in
the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a
just outcome."
(13) In view of the law laid down in case of Adri Dharan Das v. State of
W.B [(2005) 4 SCC 303] and P. Chidambaram V/s Directorate of
Enforcement reported in AIR 2019 SC 4198, custodial interrogation
of not only the applicant, but all other suspect/s is therefore
imperative to unearth the truth. Hence, this is a not a fit case to
exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the applicant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6748/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
(14) In the above facts and circumstances and considering the
observations on the legal aspect of the matter, this Court has
absolutely no doubt that if applicant is equipped with such an order
before he is interrogated by the Police, it would greatly harm the
investigation and would impede the prospects of unearthing all the
ramifications involved in the conspiracy. Having considered nature
and seriousness of the charge, prima facie involvement of accused
and possibility of tempering with evidences, it does not appear to be
just and proper to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant
and accordingly, this application for anticipatory bail is dismissed.
However, it is needless to say that, the observations made
in this order are tentative in nature.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
