IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO.
4734 of 2025 ==========================================================
INDRAKUMAR DHANJIBHAI DAMOR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================
Appearance:
MS NM ZAVERI(13091) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR HK PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 06/03/2025
ORDER :
HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.
RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State of Gujarat.
1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11191002240477 of 2024 registered with Ranip Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 116(B) and 98(2) of the Prohibition Act.
2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and the applicant is implicated only because he is the owner of the vehicle from which muddamal liquor is recovered. The driver Kishan of the said vehicle is on run. The applicant is not having any past antecedent. Hence, now nothing remains to be recovered or discovered from the present applicant and therefore, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that applicant has not cooperated with the investigation and even the driver of the vehicle carrying muddamal is on run and yet to be arrested. Hence, as custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, he has requested to dismiss the present application.
4. Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided. I have considered the following aspects.
(1) Offence is not punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty and triable by the Court of JMFC;
(2) Applicant is the owner of the vehicle from which muddamal liquor is recovered;
(3) The muddamal has been recovered and hence, nothing is required to be recovered or discovered;
(4) The applicant is served the notice by the IO through whatsapp which is not permissible;
(5) No case for custodial interrogation is made out;
(6) Applicant is not named in the FIR and nothing is found from the conscious possession of the applicant.
5. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665 and also the decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, I am inclined to allow the present application.
6. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest / appearance of the applicant in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11191002240477 of 2024 registered with Ranip Police Station, Ahmedabad City, the applicant shall be released on bail on furn
Anticipatory bail may be granted if the applicant is not named in the FIR, has no past criminal record, and custodial interrogation is not necessary.
Anticipatory bail can be granted even when a warrant is issued, provided the prosecution fails to substantiate allegations against the applicant.
Anticipatory bail can be granted when the applicant has returned misappropriated funds, and custodial interrogation is not deemed necessary.
The court granted anticipatory bail, emphasizing the need for judicious discretion and considering the absence of necessity for custodial interrogation due to seized evidence.
Anticipatory bail can only be granted in exceptional circumstances, balancing individual rights against societal interests, especially in serious offenses.
Anticipatory bail granted due to lack of evidence against the applicant and concerns regarding the validity of co-accused statements.
Anticipatory bail denied due to serious allegations and necessity for custodial interrogation, emphasizing public interest over individual rights.
Anticipatory bail should be granted judiciously, considering the nature of accusations and the applicant's cooperation with the investigation.
Anticipatory bail granted due to lack of prior offenses and delayed FIR, emphasizing judicial discretion in bail applications.
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.