Back
2001 Supreme(Guj) 280
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :C.K.BUCH
BIPIN SHANTILAL PANCHAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRI.M.A. 6523 of 2000
Decided On : 05/01/2001
Headnote:
Constitution of India, Article 21 – Applications are preferred under sec. 439 of praying bail by the petitioners-accused of Sessions Case pending in the Court of ld. Additional City Sessions Judge,. Since in both the applications similar points are involved, they are heard and disposed of by this common order – petitioners of both these application i. e. Cri. Misc. Application are facing trial of the offences punishable under sections 22 and 24 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 read with section 120b of IPC and section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985. Both these petitioners had prayed earlier for bail pending trial on more than one occasions before this Court and before the Sessions Court. Sessions Case pending in the Court of ld. Addl. City Sessions Judge, is a commenced trial and some witnesses are also examined. Petitioners came to be arrested for the alleged offences and till then, they are in custody. Some and substance of these petitions is that though their bail plea had been rejected earlier, they should be enlarged on bail as the trial is protracted for very long period right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution. An languishing in jail for no fault on his part, atleast should be released on bail, if it is not possible or practicable to close the trial or to terminate the proceedings considering the right of speedy trial embodied in Article 21 of Constitution. In some cases, enlargement of accused on bail may be necessary to meet the requirements of Article 21 backbone of the submissions advanced by ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioners –Held, BOTH these x. trial Judge will be entitled to act on the statement of the petitioners-under trials; petitioners shall on being released on temporary bail, not apply for passport after their release and shall supply their 3 Passport size recent photographs within one week from their release to the ld. Trial Judge and 2 Passport size recent photographs to the prosecuting agency so that either of the two can instruct the Passport Officer of the concerned region or at the outlet to reduce scope of petitioners obtaining or using another passport in any fictitious name. Trial Court as well as prosecuting agencies are entitled to take appropriate steps in this regard; (III) shall mark their presence in the office of DRI on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, once during the office hours petitioners are exempted to appear before DRI on any of the aforesaid days if they appear before the trial Court on that particular day, as required by the trial Court. (IV) may furnish bail by depositing cash equal to the bail amount; (V) shall not deal in the business of pharmaceuticals or any allied products in any manner whatsoever till further orders shall also be ban on transportation of pharmaceutical products by them; (VI) shall not directly or indirectly try to establish contacts with prosecution witnesses and shall not try to influence them. (VII) shall furnish sureties as ordered of a person having immovable properties in the State of Gujarat. Trial Court shall verify the genuineness of the solvency tendered at the time of execution of bail bonds; (VIII) shall surrender on expiry of 90th day from the date of their release –Ordered Accordingly.
( 1 ) RULE. Service of Rule is waived by ld. APP Mr. N. D. Gohil for Respondent No. 1 State and ld. Spl. P. P. Mr. D. N. Patel for Respondent No. 2 Director of Revenue Intelligence (DRI for short) in both these applications.
( 2 ) BOTH these Cri. Misc. Applications are preferred under sec. 439 of Crpc praying bail by the petitioners-accused of Sessions Case No. 162/94 pending in the Court of ld. Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad. Since in both the applications similar points are involved, they are heard and disposed of by this common order.
( 3 ) THE petitioners of both these application i. e. Cri. Misc. Application No. 6523/2000 and 1722/2001 are facing trial of the offences punishable under sections 22 and 24 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 read with section 120b of IPC and section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985. (hereinafter referred to as the "ndps Act" ). Both these petitioners had prayed earlier for bail pending trial on more than one occasions before this Court and before the Sessions Court. Sessions Case No. 162/94 pending in the Court of ld. Addl. City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, is a commenced trial and some witnesses are also examined. The petitioners came to be arrested for the alleged offences on 8. 11. 1993 and till then, they are in custody. Some and substance of these petitions is that though their bail plea had been rejected earlier, they should be enlarged on bail as the trial is protracted for very long period in view of the right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution. An undertrial languishing in jail for no fault on his part, atleast should be released on bail, if it is not possible or practicable to close the trial or to terminate the proceedings considering the right of speedy trial embodied in Article 21 of Constitution. In some cases, enlargement of accused on bail may be necessary to meet the requirements of Article 21, is the backbone of the submissions advanced by ld. counsel appearing for the petitioners.
( 4 ) LD. Spl. P. P. Shri D. N. Patel appearing for department of Deputy Director-Directorate of Revenue Intelligence - respondent no. 2 and ld. APP Mr. Gohil appearing for respondent no. 1 State have resisted the bail plea and it is argued that considering the ratio of various decisions of the Apex Court, the present accused are not entitled to bail under the alleged right following from Article 21. As it happens in many cases, parties counsel have placed their reliance mainly on same judgments cited and have tried to interpret the ratio and observations of the Apex Court from their point of view.
( 5 ) IT is the case of the prosecution that on receipt of specific information, officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as " dri") had intercepted export consignment on 4. 11. 1993 at Air India Warehouse, Mumbai. Consignment was booked from Air Cargo Complex, Ahmedabad by one M/s Advance Exports, Ahmedabad and was meant for export to Nairobi. Consignment was examined minutely and it was found that it contained Methaquolone tablets popularly known as "mandrex Tablets". According to the prosecution, these Mandrex Tablets weighing about 162 kgs. were seized in view of the provisions of the NDPS Act. It is pleaded by the prosecution that during follow-up action, certain statements of different individuals were recorded and some search was carried out at the residence of Dr. Bipin Panchal- petitioner of Cri. Misc. Application No. 6523/2000 on 5. 11. 1993. Some incriminating documents as well as export seal were sized and statement of accused Bipin Panchal was recorded after interrogation on 6. 11. 1993. DRI had investigated the offending act by recording statements of various persons and there were different seizures whereby Mandrex Tablets came to be seized on or about 12th and 13th January,1994. It is also the case of the prosecution that number of other incriminating documents were seized
