Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sonia Gokani, J.
Sanjiv R. Bhatt - Appellant
Vs.
State of Gujarat - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 23368 of 2018
Decided On : 07-03-2019
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 116, 119,167,204 and 343 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 17, 18, 29, and 58(2) and 59(2) - Bail sought - One Police Inspector LCB in his First Information Report has stated that while he was present at police control room anonymous call was received from police control room that one unknown person had informed on phone that one was dealing in opium and was carrying 05 kgs of opium - Held, Expertise mastered under the law for having enjoyed different positions as a Senior Police Officer in IPS cadre could result into tyranny for the witnesses who are all his juniors and submergence of the criminal justice system - Request, for the regular bail therefore, cannot be acceded to - Application for regular bail under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code deserves to be rejected - However, while balancing the scale, keeping in mind the offence being, where the trial has not as yet begun, the trial Court is directed to expedite the process of completing the trial sooner as possible bearing in mind the provisions of section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code where the applicant shall cooperate - If the trial does not get concluded within the period of six months, the applicant shall be at the liberty to approach this Court once again - Application disposed of. (Para 38)
Based on the provided legal document, the following key points emerge:
The case involves an application for regular bail under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a FIR related to the NDPS Act and Indian Penal Code offences. The offences are severe, involving possession of a substantial quantity of opium, which is classified as a commercial quantity, attracting stringent provisions of the NDPS Act (!) (!) .
The investigation into the case was delayed for many years, primarily due to stay orders and pending proceedings before higher courts. It was only after the stay was lifted that the investigation was initiated and completed, leading to the filing of the final report (!) (!) .
The case involves overlapping investigations and multiple FIRs, with the Gujarat FIR being a consequence of the Rajasthan FIR. The legal principle that offences arising from the same transaction or as a consequence of the same underlying conspiracy should be treated as a single offence has been emphasized (!) (!) (!) .
The investigation was conducted by different authorities, including Rajasthan Police and Gujarat authorities, with some investigations remaining incomplete or unexamined for a long period. There is a concern regarding the fairness and thoroughness of the investigation, which impacts the right to a fair trial (!) (!) (!) .
The application of amendments to the NDPS Act, particularly regarding the distinction between small and commercial quantities, has been discussed. The amendments introduced stricter conditions for bail, especially for offences involving commercial quantities, and these provisions are applicable to cases where the offence occurred before or after the amendment based on the timing of the trial completion and appeals (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The applicant's past criminal record, conduct, and attempts to manipulate legal proceedings have been considered. The court noted that the applicant has a history of serious criminal involvement and abuse of legal processes, which weigh against granting bail (!) (!) .
The gravity of the offence, the involvement of high-profile persons, and the potential for witness tampering are significant factors. The court expressed concern that releasing the accused on bail could jeopardize the integrity of the trial and the course of justice (!) (!) .
The court acknowledged the long pendency of the case and the importance of expediting trial proceedings. It directed the trial court to accelerate the process and allowed the applicant to approach again if the trial was not concluded within six months (!) (!) .
Ultimately, considering the seriousness of the offence, the length of time elapsed, the nature of evidence, and the applicant’s conduct, the court rejected the bail application. It emphasized that the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, especially regarding commercial quantities, restrict the grant of bail and that the investigation and trial must proceed without undue delay (!) (!) .
The overall stance indicates that while the delay in trial is recognized, the gravity of the offence and the potential impact on justice outweigh the factors favoring bail. The court prioritized the need for a fair, thorough investigation and expeditious trial over the applicant’s liberty at this stage (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you require further analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.
Sonia Gokani, J.
Present application is preferred under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for regular bail in connection with the First Information Report (FIR) hereinafter being Prohibition C.R.No-216 of 1996 registered with Palanpur City police station for the offences punishable under sections 17, 18, 29, and 58(2) and 59(2)of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("the NDPS Act" for short) and sections 120B, 116, 119,167,204 and 343 of the Indian Penal Code.
Factual Matrix
2. This case has a chequered history and the facts in a capsulized form deserve to be mentioned at the outset for the purpose of adjudicating the bail plea of the applicant:-
2.1 One Mr. I.B. Vyas, Police Inspector, LCB, Palanpur, District; Banaskantha in his First Information Report has stated that while he was present at police control room anonymous call was received from police control room that one unknown person from Pali, Rajasthan had informed on phone that Shri Sumair Singh Rajpurohit was dealing in opium and was carrying 05 kgs of opium. Sumair Singh Rajpurohit had stayed at hotel Lajvanti and opium was to be delivered at Palanpur.
2.2 The raid was decided to be carried out on 30.04.1996, where all the police personnels named in the FIR were made aware of the telephonic message received from the police control room, Palanpur. They started at 07:10 a.m for Vishramgruh, Palanpur in the police vehicle for carrying out raid at the place shown in the telephonic message. On reaching at the circle where guest house is situated request was made to two persons to remain as panchas, namely, (1) Gulam Reaul Abdul Rahman Pathan and (2) Mohmad Juber Sadulbhai Manknoiya and thereafter, with the panchas the police party reached at Lajvanti guest house.
2.3 On reaching the hotel/guest house, they met Mr. Askhokkumar Shantilal Gupta, who was intimated of the message. He was inquired as to whether any person named Sumair Singh Rajpurohit was staying at the guest house and on verifying the register, he did show the entry of Shri Rajpurohit. They went to the third floor and asked the person concerned to open room No.305. Nobody was found in the room, under the coat, a red coloured cotton bag with blue and yellow design was found with a bundle wrapped in the cotton cloth of cross-design and on opening the same, a black coloured narcotic substance called opium was found and the same weighed 1 kg and 15 grams.
2.4 After completing due procedure of panchnama, attempts were made to locate Sumair Singh Rajpurohit. What happened thereafter gave birth to the FIR of Rajasthan and its reference would be required at this stage, which is FIR being I-C.R.No.403 of 1996.
3. The I-C.R.No-403 of 1996 was registered with Kotwali police station, Pali, Rajasthan by Advocate Mr. Sumair Singh Rajpurohit, who is arraigned as accused in Prohibition C.R.No.216 of 1996, wherein it has been alleged by him that for a shop situated at Jaipur of paternal uncle of co-accused Shri R.R. Jain, who while acting as an Additional Judge, High Court of Gujarat, while on the constitutional post, hatched a conspiracy with the present applicant to get the shop of his sister vacated, the power of attorney of which was with his paternal uncle Mr. Phutermal Hirachand vacated.
3.1 It appears that shop No.6, which was situated at Vardhman market, Pali was purchased by Amribai alias Amita Jain in the year 1978, which became the harbinger of dispute from the years 1981 till 1991. Shri Ramesh Kumar Jain, tenants of the said shop being partners of the firm and Shri Mohanlal Jain, did not hand over the possession of this shop and Shri Mohanlal Jain started disputing the rent with accused Phutermal Jain and Shri Mohanlal Jain also started discussion of sub-letting the said shop to some third party.
3.2 After obtaining the power of attorney from Mr. Amribai alias Amita Jain on 0
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
