HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY, J
MUJJAFARALI @ MUJJU RUSTAMBHAI SHAIKH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 2452 of 2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 483 - Application for regular bail in connection with serious drug offences - The applicant alleged to have supplied contraband substance mephedrone, with evidence primarily consisting of call data records and statements from co-accused - Court considered factors including prima facie case and likelihood of tampering with evidence in deciding to grant bail. (Paras 6, 7, 8)
(B) Bail - Conditions imposed - The applicant is ordered to execute a bond with conditions including non-inducement of witnesses, maintaining law and order, and providing residence proof. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The applicant is accused of supplying 376.600 kgs of mephedrone, with limited evidence linking them to the offence, primarily the statements of co-accused and call data records. (Paras 4, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant's release on bail was justified given the lack of substantial evidence connecting them to the offence at this stage. (Paras 5, 7)
Issues: The main issues included the sufficiency of evidence against the applicant and the appropriateness of granting bail considering the serious nature of the charges. (Paras 4, 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the discretion to grant bail should be exercised in light of the evidence available, emphasizing the need for a prima facie case and potential risks of tampering with witnesses. (Paras 6, 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.11191024230872 of 2023 registered with Ramol 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 in constant touch with the other co-accused and call data records in that regard had also been recovered by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. The applicant is alleged to have supplied the stock of contraband substance mephedrone which has been recoveredf rom the conscious possession of the other co-accused. 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. Investigation is over and Charge-sheet has already been filed. As per the case of prosecution, the co-accused was found in conscious possession of contraband substance mephedrone worth 376.600 kgs. The said substance was allegedly supplied by the present applicant. However, except the statement of the other co-accused and some call data records, there is nothing on record connecting the present applicant with the present offence. Having regard to this aspect, 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 07.09.2024.
(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/- (Ten Thousand) 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 the terr
A court may grant bail if evidence against the applicant is insufficient, considering factors like prima facie case and risk of tampering with witnesses.
The court may grant bail if the evidence does not establish a prima facie case against the applicant, despite serious charges.
The court granted bail based on insufficient evidence connecting the applicant to the offence, emphasizing the need for substantial proof in serious criminal cases.
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 established that bail may be granted even in serious offences if conditions are imposed to ensure the accused's presence and prevent evidence tampering.
The court granted bail based on the applicant's custody status and the nature of allegations, emphasizing the need for conditions to ensure trial integrity.
The court granted bail based on the applicant's limited involvement in the offence and the completion of the investigation, emphasizing the need for strict conditions to prevent interference with the....
The court granted bail based on the applicant's custody duration and the nature of allegations, emphasizing the need for conditions to prevent interference with the investigation.
The court granted bail based on the applicant's stable condition of the victim and the completion of the investigation, emphasizing the need for conditions to prevent tampering and ensure trial atten....
In the absence of substantial evidence linking the applicant to the alleged crime, bail may be granted, considering the applicant's compliance with conditions and lack of flight risk.
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.