IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
Afzal Aasif Ghanchi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Criminal Misc.Application No. 21505 of 2021
Decided on : 27-04-2022
Bail Application - Delay in Trial - IPC 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D, 120B, 34 - Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - The court discussed the delay in trial, prima facie case against the applicant, severity of the offences, and the balance between individual liberty and the interest of society. The court referred to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav regarding the importance of Article 21 and the need to balance individual liberty with the interest of society.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a successive bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, citing delay in trial and lack of evidence against him. The prosecution presented evidence of fake currency notes and related materials found in the applicant's possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a prima facie case against the applicant and considered the severity of the alleged offences. It also balanced the right to individual liberty with the interest of society, as highlighted in the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Issues: Delay in trial, prima facie case, severity of offences, balance between individual liberty and the interest of society.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the delay in trial, prima facie evidence, severity of the offences, and the need to balance individual liberty with the interest of society, as per the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the bail application and discharged the rule.
ORDER :
1. This successive bail application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`the Code’ for short) by the applicant-accused with a request that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail in connection with C.R.No.I-105 of 2019 registered with Chikhli Police Station, Navsari.
2. Heard learned senior advocate Mr.I.H.Syed assisted by learned advocate Mr.Aniq Kadri for the applicant and learned APP Mr.Raval for respondent-state.
3. Learned senior advocate Mr.Syed submitted that FIR being C.R.No.I-105 of 2019 has been registered against the present applicant and other accused before Chikhli Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ for short). It is mainly alleged in the said FIR that counterfeit notes’ scan/xerox machines were found at the residential premises of the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant is arrested in connection with the aforesaid FIR on 8.12.2019 and since then, he is in jail. It is submitted that the applicant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.4207 of 2020 before this Court. However, this Court was not inclined to entertain the said application and therefore the same was withdrawn on 30.6.2020. This Court granted liberty to file fresh application if the trial is not commenced within a period of six months.
3.1. Thereafter, once again the applicant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3944 of 2021 which was also withdrawn on 25.6.2021 and liberty was granted to file fresh application after a period of four months if the trial is not concluded.
3.2. Learned senior advocate Mr.Syed submitted that the applicant is in jail since December, 2019 and till date, the trial is not proceeded further and therefore on this ground of delay in proceeding with the trial, the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. At this stage, learned senior advocate further submitted that from the allegations levelled against the applicant in the aforesaid FIR also, it cannot be said that the applicant was found with fake currency noted and therefore also, the case of the applicant be considered on merits. At this stage, learned senior advocate has referred to the orders passed by this Court by which the applicant has been enlarged on temporary bail. It is submitted that the applicant has complied with the conditions imposed by this Court when the applicant was enlarged on temporary bail. Learned senior advocate, therefore, urged that this application be allowed.
4. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed this application. Learned APP has placed on record the relevant papers of the chargesheet and the report submitted by the investigating officer. Learned APP submitted that the applicant had earlier filed application under Section 439 of the Code on two occasions and when this Court was not inclined to entertain the said application on merits, the applicant withdrew the said applications and therefore it is not open for the applicant to canvass on merits of the application.
5. Learned APP has referred to the panchanama from which it is pointed that from the residential premises of the present applicant, two xerox printers, two green coloured pens, scissor and fake currency notes were recovered. At this stage, learned APP has referred to the statement of the witnesses Mohsin Asgar Shaikh who has sold the printer to the applicant. Learned APP has also referred to the statement of the witness Mohammed Haiderbhai Bakaswala who had sold the necessary papers/required papers for printing of the notes to the present applicant. The statement of another witness Viral Manilal Desai who sold another printer to the applicant is also part of the chargesheet papers. Seven fake currency notes of denomination of Rs.100/-, forty-one fake currency notes of denomination of Rs.200/- and one fake currency note of Rs.500/- were found from the possession of the present applicant. Learned APP has also referred to the FSL r
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.