Gujarat High Court
Jayesh Rasmesh Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 23 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25353/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 25353
of 2024
==========================================================
JAYESH RASMESH PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
KRUSHALKUMAR D SHELADIYA(8017) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 23/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and
on behalf of the respondent - State of Gujarat.
2. By way of present application under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS"),
the applicant-original accused has prayed to release him on
anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the
FIR being CR No. 11200019241778/2024 registered with
Dungari Police Station, Valsad for the offences punishable under
Sections 65(a)(e), 81, 98(2) & 116B of Gujarat Prohibition Act,
1949 and Sections 336(2), 336(3), 340(4) & 54 of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the
applicant has been falsely roped in the offence and nothing is
recovered from the present applicant accused. The applicant is
not named in the FIR and he has been implicated only on the
basis of the statement of co-accused. Further, the applicant is
not aware about the incident. Besides, the applicant is available
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25353/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025
undefined
during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice.
In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory
bail.
4. Per contra, learned APP has vehemently opposed the
application on the ground that the present applicant is alleged to
be the receiver of the seized muddamal i.e., 3,936 and 468 (total
4,404) bottles of Liquor, worth Rs. 12,36,000/-. It is further
submitted that the applicant has previously been involved in
twenty-four other offences of a similar nature. It is also
submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, there is a
possibility that he may again engage in such illegal activities.
Hence, as the investigation is at preliminary stage, he has
requested to dismiss the present application.
5. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by
learned advocate for both the sides and considered the material
placed on record.
6. Prima facie, going through the record, it appears that
during a police checkpoint operation, a silver-colored Toyota
Qualis car was found carrying 101 boxes containing 3,936
bottles of liquor, valued at Rs.4,23,600/-. Additionally, a Maruti
800 (Fronty) car was found carrying 14 boxes containing 468
bottles of liquor, valued at Rs.44,400/-. The total value of both
vehicles is Rs.3,00,000/- and the liquor found in both vehicles
consists of 115 boxes containing 4,404 bottles of liquor, with a
total value of Rs.4,68,000/-, bringing the overall value to
Rs.7,68,000/-. This prohibited contraband was being
transported illegally without any pass or permit. The accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25353/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025
undefined
fled the scene, abandoning the liquor-laden vehicles in an
attempt to evade arrest. The wanted accused, Jayesh Ramesh
Patel, a resident of Charwada, Taluka & District Valsad, has not
yet been apprehended. The accused are alleged to have
conspired to transport the contraband liquor and to mislead the
police and the public by affixing a fake registration number plate
on the Maruti 800 (Fronty) car.
7. Further, the applicant's name is mentioned in the FIR as
an accused, and he is alleged to be the receiver of the said large
quantity of contraband. After the complaint was lodged, he
evaded arrest and is currently absconding. He is known to
indulge in illegal activities such as the sale and purchase of
contraband liquor in the dry state of Gujarat and he has 24 past
identical antecedents. A vehicle loaded with a huge quantity of
contraband liquor, associated with the applicant, was
intercepted by the police. The vehicle bore a forged registration
number plate, and a large quantity of contraband liquor was
recovered from it. During the investigation, Form No. 29 was also
recovered from the office of the Regional Transport Office, which
further revealed the involvement of the present applicant.
8. In view of the facts of the present case and looking to the
material placed on record, it clearly transpires that the applicant
has remained absconder. In the instant case, role of the
applicant is attributed as a receiver of the liquor and it was very
much within the knowledge of the applicant that Gujarat being a
dry state, prohibition is there, however, he ordered the
contraband.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25353/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025
undefined
9. In aforesaid backdrop, custodial interrogation is necessary.
When serious offences are disclosed and involvement of an
accused prima facie established then, the Court would be loath
to lean in favour of grant of pre-arrest bail in absence of any
other overriding considerations. The alleged offence is in nature
of white collar and socioeconomic offence, this Court is
conscious with the safeguards provided under Section 482 of the
BNSS (section 438 of the CrPC) and concept of the personal
liberty. But herein, I am of the considered of view that, the
present offence is not just an offence against any individual
rather the largest societal interest and public welfare is involved
in and in such circumstances, the delicate balance is required to
be maintained between two rights one against the personal
liberty and second is societal interest. Arrest is part of the
process of investigation and intended to secure several purposes.
In which the accused may provide information, during the the
discovery of material facts and to relevant information.
10. 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."
11. It is appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court rendered in the case of Pratibha Manchanda vs.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25353/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025
undefined
State of Haryana reported in AIR 2023 SC 3307, wherein the
Hon'ble 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."
12. Insofar as the submission on behalf of the applicant that in
the present case, muddamal is recovered and therefore, no
custodial interrogation is required is concerned, it is worthy to
mention that herein, prima facie case is made out against the
present applicant and there are serious allegations against the
applicant that he used to supply the liquor to the accused
person and he was in active contact with other accused and he
has actively participated in the offence. Thus, in order to reach
to a logical conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating
Officer deserves a free hand. There is no rule that if custodial
interrogation is not required then anticipatory bail is required to
be granted. The custodial interrogation is one of the good
grounds to reject the anticipatory bail application but merely
because custodial interrogation is not required, itself is not a
ground to allow the anticipatory bail application.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25353/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025
undefined
13. This Court deems it appropriate to refer to the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of
Investigation Vs. Vikas Mishra @ Vikash Mishra, reported in
(2023)6 SCC 49, the right of custodial interrogation is very
important right of the investigating agency to unearth the truth
and which the accused has purposely and successfully tried to
frustrate. Hence, police custody for interrogation is necessary.
Here in the case on hand, complainant has lost his hard earned
income and to recover the said amount, custodial interrogation
is necessary.
14. In view of the above decision and in view of the facts and
circumstances of this case, 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.
15. In such circumstances, when investigation is in
preliminary stage if, anticipatory bail is granted may hamper the
investigation and to collect the material in the more information,
and find out the involvements of another person custodial
interrogation is also necessary, therefore, keeping in mind the
law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of
(i) State Rep. by the CBI V/s Anil Sharma reported in 1997 (7)
SCC 187, (ii) Adri Dharan Das V/s State of W.B. reported in
2005 (4) SCC 303 and (iii) P. Chidambaram V/s Directorate of
Enforcement reported in AIR 2019 SC 4198, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held held as follows:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25353/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025
undefined
"The legislative intent behind the introduction of Section
438 CrPC is to safeguard the individual's personal liberty
and to protect him from the possibility of being humiliated
and from being subjected to unnecessary police custody.
However, the court must also keep in view that a criminal
offence is not just an offence against an individual rather
the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate
balance is required to be established between the two rights
- safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the
societal interest.
Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation
to secure not only the presence of the accused but several
other purposes. There may be circumstances in which the
accused may provide information leading to discovery of
material facts and relevant information. Grant of
anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. It may
frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the
accused and in collecting the useful information and also
the materials which might have been concealed. Success in
such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that
he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of
anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would
definitely hamper the effective investigation. Pre-arrest bail
is to strike a balance between the individual's right to
personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency
to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected
and to collect more information which may lead to recovery
of relevant information. In this view, it cannot be said that
refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount to denial of
the rights conferred upon the appellant/applicant under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, power under Section 438 CrPC being an
extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more
so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand
as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the
society. The privilege of the prearrest bail should be granted
only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred
upon the court has to be properly exercised after
application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the
accusation; possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and
other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of
anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent
interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and
hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such
power for grant of anticipatory bail. Section 438 CrPC is to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25353/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025
undefined
be invoked only in exceptional cases where the case alleged
is frivolous or groundless. Anticipatory bail is to be granted
as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the
court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to
resort to that extraordinary remedy".
Having regard to nature of allegations and stage of
investigations, held investigating agency must be given
sufficient freedom in process of investigation. Appellant
not entitled to anticipatory bail as the same would
hamper the investigation"
16. Furthermore, if the applicant is indeed innocent, he ought
to have joined and cooperated with the police investigation
rather than absconding from the scene. However, he has failed to
do so and is currently evading arrest. This conduct on the part of
the applicant clearly indicates mens rea. Innocent individuals
generally do not display such unnatural behavior in the ordinary
course of events. In the present case, the applicant's conduct is
a significant factor and must be duly considered. It is well-
settled that conduct may vary from person to person; however,
when the involvement of the accused is prima facie established,
and the allegations are not found to be maliciously intended to
defame or tarnish the image of the applicant, the Court must
exercise its jurisdiction judiciously. It is important to emphasize
that the grant of anticipatory bail is neither an extraordinary
jurisdiction nor an absolute right of the accused. In this context,
reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ram Kishan Balothia,
reported in (1995) 3 SCC 221.
17. In view of the above, it appears that as and when the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25353/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025
undefined
applicant was released on bail, he resumed engaging in such
illegal activities and is now absconding. Hence, in view of the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Haryana
vs. Dharamraj reported in 2023 INSC 784; Lavesh vs. (NCT of
Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 730; Abhishek vs. State of
Maharastra reported in 2022 (8) SCC 282 and Prem Shankar
Prasad vs. State of Bihar reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 955
and Srikant Upadhyay and Others vs. State of Bihar and
Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282 and Serious
Fraud Investigation Office vs. Aditya Sarda reported in 2025
INSC 477, I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case
to exercise the jurisdiction to grant of pre-arrest bail in favour of
the applicant.
18. Further, Gujarat is a dry State and pursuant to Article 47
of the Constitution of India, the directive principles of the State
policy, it is the duty of the State to raise the standard of living
and improve the public health and for the said purpose,
prohibition of such intoxicating drugs being made compulsory in
the Gujarat State. The State is committed to the ideas and
principles of Father of Nation Shri Mahatma Gandhji and State
also firmly intends to eradicate the menace of consuming liquor
or intoxicating drugs to overhaul the law relating to intoxicating
drugs and total prohibition in the State and for that
amendments also being made in the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
Considering the aforesaid fact, prima facie involvement being
made out, no case is made out to grant anticipatory bail to the
applicant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25353/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025
undefined
19. For the foregoing reasons and considering the law laid
down in the above cited decisions of this Court as well as the
Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of view that it is not a fit case
to exercise the discretion under Section 482 of the BNSS in
favour of the present applicant. Accordingly, present application
does not deserve any consideration and is hereby dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
20. It is made clear that the observations made in the present
order are tentative in nature and the learned trial Court shall
decide the case of the applicant on its own merits without being
influenced by the observations made in the present order.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI
