Gujarat High Court
Sanjiv @ Chanchal Surendrabahadur Sinh ... vs State Of Gujarat on 28 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4095/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 4095
of 2025
==========================================================
SANJIV @ CHANCHAL SURENDRABAHADUR SINH RAJPUT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ARJUNSINGH B CHAUHAN(11510) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HK PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 28/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of
Rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS") /
under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the
applicant-original accused has prayed to release him on
anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the
FIR registered at Bhestan Police Station, Surat being C.R
No.11210070241247 of 2024 for the offences punishable under
Sections 54, 61, 109(2), 115(1) and 351(2) of the BNS read with
Section 135 of the GP Act.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the
present applicant has nothing to do with the offence. It is
contended that all allegations are primarily directed against
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4095/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
accused No.2, Akhilesh Bharti. Furthermore, the advocate has
submitted that the injured has already been discharged from
the hospital, indicating that the severity of the incident may not
be as grave as alleged. The learned advocate further submits that
the applicant is the sole breadwinner of his family and has the
responsibility of maintaining them. Additionally, it is pointed out
that a cross-complaint has been filed by accused No.2, suggesting
that the case involves counter-allegations. It is also submitted
that nine prior offenses against the applicant have already been
disposed of. Co-accused is already enlarged on bail. On the
principle of parity, the advocate argues that the applicant should
also be considered for bail. Learned advocate for the applicant,
on instructions, states that the applicant is ready and willing to
abide by all the conditions.
4. Learned APP has opposed the present application on the
ground that the present applicant is the conspirator. Applicant is
the mastermind behind the illegal activities, specifically related
to SPA (presumably a reference to an unlawful scheme or
association), and was involved in the raid that was conducted.
The applicant is said to have a grudge against the complainant
and acted as an informer to the police, which led to the raid. The
applicant is facing a total of 12 criminal cases, including charges
for tampering with evidence and attempting to extort a
settlement of the dispute. There are no clear acquittals in these
matters, and the applicant has been involved in pressuring
witnesses to turn hostile or secure quashing of charges. Though
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4095/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
acquitted in some instances, the charges are still pending in other
cases. Furthermore, the Learned APP highlights the seriousness
of the charges, including involvement in activities related to
prohibition, SPA, immoral trafficking, and other serious offenses.
Evidence such as Call Detail Records (CDR) has been collected
during the investigation, strengthening the case against the
applicant. Considering the gravity of the situation and the
possibility of the applicant tampering with evidence if granted
bail, the Learned APP requests that the bail application be
dismissed, stating that the applicant is the main perpetrator and
has orchestrated the crimes, including assigning tasks to the co-
accused to take revenge on the complainant. In conclusion, the
applicant's alleged involvement in various criminal activities and
the risk of influencing the investigation leads to the call for the
rejection of the bail plea.
5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties, this Court has considered the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for both the sides and considered the material
placed on record. It is well settled that, among other
circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering
an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or
reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed
the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity
of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the
accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character,
behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused. Though
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4095/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
at the stage of granting bail execution and appreciation of
evidence is not permissible. Having gone through the complaint,
prima facie, it appears that the present applicant is involved in
the offence.
6. The allegations against the present applicant is that he was
running the business of SPA and present applicant has informed
to the police, keeping the grudge of the said fact in collusion with
other accused, to continue such illegal activity and hatching the
conspiracy. He is the main perpetrator and show involvement of
the present applicant, sufficient material including the CDR is
collected. So far as the allegations of the conspiracy is concerned,
hardly direct material would be available for that circumstances
and attaining circumstances material is collected. Inference is
required to be withdrawn. Even otherwise, applicant is having
criminal past antecedents, he is facing the charge under the
Prohibition Act and immoral trafficking and body related
offences. It appears that not a single case he has secured clear
acquittal. It appears that either he has got settled or to quash the
proceedings. It clearly appears that this is noting but to tamper
with the evidence. Even we perused the allegations made in the
FIR, it appears that on 08.12.2024, at the instance present
applicant, co-accused has made an assault on the neck by knife,
which is vital. Even by deadly weapons, they have made an
assault to the victim
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4095/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
7. The criteria to grant anticipatory bail and regular bail has
been laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions. While
criminal administration of justice disturbed, arrest is a part of
investigation. After the arrest of the accused when substantial
part of the investigation including remand gets over, then the
Court has to exercise jurisdiction considering the evidence
collected during investigation. It is needless to say that Section
438 of the Code is pre-arrest bail as there is a part of
investigation and importance of the arrest is time and again
discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. When the involvement of
the accused is prima facie revealed and if allegation is not
levelled that to defame him/them or to tarnish his/their image,
the Court has to exercise jurisdiction, but to seek anticipatory
bail is not an extraordinary jurisdiction and absolute right of the
accused.
10. In this background facts, this Court prima facie is of
considered view that, there is a reasonable ground to believe
that the applicant has committed the alleged offence.
Considering the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that
the applicant herein has been falsely implicated in the alleged
offence. If the anticipatory bail as sought for is granted, then it
will affect the investigation of the case. Therefore, custodial
interrogation of the applicant is required.
11. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of
Maharashtra, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon'ble Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4095/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
held that life and personal liberty are the most prized
possessions of an individual but not at the cost of larger interest
of society and public. This is not a case, wherein accused is falsely
enraged in the offence with a view to tarnish his image.
Considering the fact that the custodial interrogation is required.
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."
13. It would be apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court rendered in case of Pratibha Manchanda vs. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4095/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
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."
13.1. Further, it would be apposite to refer the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of P. Chidambaram V/s Directorate
of Enforcement reported in AIR 2019 SC 4198, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held held as follows:
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4095/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
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 pre-arrest 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4095/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
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 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".
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 also 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 view of above, if the present applicant is/are protected
with this order, this Court is of the considered view that if the
present accused is equipped with protective order, it would
obviously affect the case of the prosecution and adversely the
qualitative investigation. This is not a fit case, wherein accused is
falsely enraged in the offence and it appears that there is no
frivolity, with a view to tarnish his image. Considering the fact
that the custodial interrogation is required.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4095/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
16. For the foregoing reasons, and considering the fact that the
applicant has 12 past antecedents and has continued to indulge
in illegal activities whenever released, as well as the fact that he
has also made the victim, who raised their voice against his illegal
activities, an accused, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit
case to exercise discretion under Section 482 of the BNSS in
favor of the applicant6 Accordingly, present application does not
deserve any consideration and is hereby dismissed. Rule is
discharged.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
KUMAR ALOK
