HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY, J
PRAVINKUMAR MAGANLAL DANRAGI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 4316 of 2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 483 - Application for regular bail - Applicant charged with possession of ganja weighing 1.100 kgs - Court considers nature of allegations and applicant's lack of antecedents - Application allowed with conditions imposed. (Paras 2, 5, 6)
(B) Bail - Factors to consider - Court must assess prima facie case, risk of flight, and potential tampering with witnesses. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was found in conscious possession of ganja worth 1.100 kgs. The charge-sheet has been filed, and the applicant has been in custody since 18.12.2024.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the application for bail was fit for consideration, allowing the applicant to be released on bail under specified conditions.
Issues: The main issues were the nature of the offence, the applicant's antecedents, and the conditions for granting bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that given the applicant's circumstances and the completion of the investigation, bail was appropriate while ensuring conditions to prevent tampering and maintain order. (Para 7)
Result: Application for bail allowed.
ORDER :
M. R. MENGDEY, J.
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State.
2. This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No.11191011240333 of 2024 registered with DCB Police Station, District Ahmedabad.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that considering the nature of offence and role attributed to the applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.
4. The learned APP appearing for the respondent State has vehemently submitted that the applicant was found in conscious possession of ganja worth 1.100 kgs. Learned APP has, therefore, submitted that the offences which have been charged, are serious in nature and looking to the facts as well as the allegations levelled against the applicant, no discretion is required to be exercised.
5. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. From the record it appears that the investigation is over and Charge-sheet has already been filed. As per the case of prosecution, the applicant was found in conscious possession of contraband substance ganja worth 1.100 kgs. Having regard to the quantity involved in the present offence and so also the fact that the applicant does not appear to be having other antecedents, the present application deserves consideration.
6. This court has also considered the following aspects:
(a) As per catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, there are mainly 3 factors which are required to be considered by this court i.e. prima facie case, availability of Applicant accused at the time of trial and tampering and hampering with the witnesses by the accused.
(b) That the learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant Accused is not likely to flee away.
(c) That the Applicant is in custody since 18.12.2024.
(d) The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v.C.B.I. Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegations made in the FIR and without discussing the evidence in details as well as without going into details, prima-facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence, the application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR, on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that;
(a) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence.
(b) shall maintain law and order and not to indulge in any criminal activities.
(c) shall furnish the documentary proof of complete, correct and present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and to the Trial Court at the time of executing the bond and shall not change residence without prior permission of the trial Court.
(d) shall provide contact numbers as well as the contact numbers of the sureties before the Trial Court. In case of change in such numbers inform in writing immediately to the trial Court.
(e) shall file an affidavit stating immovable properties whether self acquired or ancestral with description, location and present value of such properties before the Trial Court, if any.
(f) shall not leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court (g) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week. If accused does not possess passport, shall file an Affidavit to that effect.
(h) shall mark presence before the concerned police station once in a month for a period of six months between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.
8. The authorities concerned shall release the applicant only if he is
The court may grant bail under Section 483 considering the nature of the offence, the applicant's antecedents, and the need to prevent tampering with evidence.
The court may grant bail considering the nature of the offence, completion of investigation, and risk of flight, imposing necessary conditions to ensure compliance.
The court ruled that bail is warranted based on the applicant's lack of prior offences and the completion of the investigation, while imposing strict conditions to ensure compliance.
The court emphasized the balance between individual liberty and public interest in bail applications, allowing bail based on the completion of investigation and the nature of allegations.
The court established that bail may be granted based on the nature of allegations, custody duration, and precedents, emphasizing judicial discretion in such matters.
The court granted bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, emphasizing the need for conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and ensure the applicant's presence during t....
The court established that bail may be granted considering the nature of the offence, prior custody duration, and the necessity of conditions to prevent tampering with evidence.
The court granted bail based on the applicant's lack of prior criminal history and the nature of the allegations, imposing conditions to prevent tampering with evidence.
The court may grant bail if the evidence does not establish a prima facie case against the applicant, despite serious charges.
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.