SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Guj) 263

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.Y. KOGJE, J.
Sureshbhadu Mangalram Bishnoi - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
R/Criminal Misc.Application No. 3028 of 2021
Decided On : 06-04-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr Amit D Shah(11232)
For the Respondent: Mr.H.K.Patel, APP, (2)

Point of law : personal knowledge of the advocate of the applicant is being narrated in the affidavit to suggest the same to be the personal knowledge of the applicant.

Headnote:

NDPS Act - Sections 8(C), 18(B) and 29 - Seeking extension of temporary bail period on the ground - Grant of extension of temporary bail submitting medical case - Whether applicant is still suffering with Corona Virus - Pleaded that the applicant is an accused in FIR bearing C.R. registered with Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 8(C), 18(B) and 29 of NDPS Act - On account of death of the father of the applicant the purpose of post death rituals, an application was filed for temporary bail and by order applicant was ordered to be released on temporary bail for a period of 8 days between - Applicant filed Criminal Misc. Application seeking extension of temporary bail period on the ground applicant is suffering with Covid-19 and is admitted in the hospital at Surat - temporary bail was extended till - Again Criminal Misc. Application was filed on the ground that he has not completely recovered and hence, by order temporary bail period was extended - temporary bail, Criminal Misc. Application was filed on the ground applicant is still not recovered from Covid-19 however.

Finding of the court : Temporary bail matter is pending do not surrender before the concerned authority and ultimately withdraw application filed before the higher forum seeking for a date to surrender, thereby automatically regularizing period where the applicant accused has uaauthorizedly remained outside the custody. In the present case also, in midst of the application, learned advocate for applicant abruptly made a request seeking permission for applicant to surrender on the very next date, but when learned advocate was confronted with the aforestated pattern would automatically lead regularizing of his unauthorized period from learned advocate in rather harsh - Despite what has been observed in order making it clear that there is no extension of temporary bail, the applicant has still failed to surrender not only that the applicant has failed to instruct the learned advocate appearing on his behalf.

Result : Application is rejected

ORDER :

1. This application is filed for extension of temporary bail for 30 days to the applicant who was granted temporary bail by the 5th Additional District Judge, Palanpur, District: Banaskantha in Criminal Misc. Application No.905 of 2020, which was subsequently extended by the District Court, but lastly by an order dated 30.01.2021 rejected the further extension of temporary bail in Criminal Misc. Application No.91 of 2021.

2. In the application, it is pleaded that the applicant is an accused in the FIR bearing C.R. No.11195003200367 of 2020 registered with Amairgadh Police Station, Palanpur for offence punishable under Sections 8(C), 18(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act. On account of death of the father of the applicant on 18.12.2020 for the purpose of post death rituals, an application was filed for temporary bail and by order dated 28.12.2020 the applicant was ordered to be released on temporary bail for a period of 8 days between 28.12.2020 to 05.01.2021. The applicant filed Criminal Misc. Application No.17 of 2021 seeking extension of temporary bail period on the ground that the applicant is suffering with Covid-19 and is admitted in the hospital at Surat. The temporary bail was extended till 19.01.2021. Again Criminal Misc. Application No.55 of 2021 was filed on the ground that he has not completely recovered and hence, by order dated 19.01.2021, the temporary bail period was extended till 30.01.2021. Thereafter, again for extension of temporary bail, Criminal Misc. Application No.91 of 2021 was filed on the ground that the applicant is still not recovered from Covid-19 however, the 5th Additional District Judge, Palanpur vide its order dated 30.01.2021 was pleased to reject the bail application.

2.1. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid order, the applicant has filed present extension application as once again the applicant has tested positive and the doctor has advised for home quarantine for 14 more days. The copy of the certificate is annexed as Annexure-F.

3. Over and above the aforesaid pleadings, learned advocate has submitted that as on date, the health of the applicant is not proper and still continues to be under the treatment and therefore, the temporary bail period should be extended further and the order of the Sessions Court may be set aside.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has opposed the grant of extension of temporary bail submitting that the medical case papers produced are not reliable and that apparently the applicant, under the excuse of Corona Virus, is seeking extension of temporary bail though the same is not warranted. It is submitted that the State has sufficient infrastructure and facility for isolation, quarantine and treatment of the prisoners. It has also set up for proper protocol for arresting accused persons and wherever the accused persons are surrendering after temporary bail, to carry out proper test regarding the covid-19 and thereafter, only admit the prisoners as per the result either into the jail or in to the quarantine facility. In the instant case, despite the extended period of temporary bail has expired long back the applicant has not surrendered not only that his whereabouts are also not traced. The applicant is an accused of serious offence under the provisions of NDPS Act wherein he has been found in conscious possession of 3 Kgs of Opium and the applicant is apparently making all efforts to avoid the custody.

4.1. Learned APP has also raised a valid question that the applicant who is a native of Rajasthan and has been arrested in connection with an offence which is registered at Banaskantha bordering Rajasthan, when he is enlarged on temporary bail is found travelling to Surat where he is reported to have tested positive, Surat being a District close to Maharashtra exactly opposite to Rajasthan, there is no reason for the applicant to travel to Surat for treatment by crossing big centers like Mehsana, Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Bharuc

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top