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

2025 Supreme(GUJ) 474

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 1618 of 2025 ==========================================================
JAVIDBHAI JUSABBHAI JUNEJA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Respondent No.1 ==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 12/03/2025

Petitioner Advocates:MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) ,Respondent Advocate: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)

The court established that bail may be granted when continued detention is unjustified, considering the nature of allegations and evidence presented.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 483 - Application for regular bail - Applicant seeks bail in connection with FIR for possession of contraband substance - Court considers factors including prima facie case, gravity of accusation, and likelihood of the applicant fleeing - Application allowed with conditions imposed. (Paras 2, 6, 7, 8)

(B) Bail - Conditions for grant - The court emphasizes the necessity of conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and ensure the applicant's presence at trial. (Paras 8, 10)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, arrested in connection with a FIR for possession of 51 kilograms of Ganja, argues for bail citing good reputation and lack of useful purpose in continued detention. The prosecution highlights the applicant's connections to co-accused and the seized contraband. (Paras 4, 5, 6)

Findings of Court:
The court finds that the investigation is complete, and the applicant's continued detention is not warranted given the circumstances and lack of substantial evidence against him. (Paras 6, 8)

Issues: The main issues include the assessment of the prima facie case against the applicant and the appropriateness of bail given the nature of the charges. (Paras 7, 8)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's continued detention was not justified based on the evidence presented, and the conditions imposed would mitigate risks associated with granting bail. (Paras 8, 10)

Result: Application for bail allowed.

ORDER :

(M.R. MENGDEY, J.)

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the Respondent State.

2. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11208052240544 of 2024 registered with Bhaktinagar Police Station. Rajkot City.

3. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent – State.

4. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant has good reputation in the society and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. Per contra, learned APP has vehemently opposed the present application for grant of regular bail contending that the present applicant has several other antecedents. She further submitted that from the room belonging to the present applicant, the contraband substance of Ganja worth 51 kilograms had been been seized. The applicant and the other two co-accused were also found present in the room. The present applicant was having telephonic contacts with the said co-accused who were found present in the room with the contraband substance and the call details in that regard have been recovered by the investigating agency. Learned APP therefore submitted that looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. From the record it appears that the investigation is over and charge- sheet has been filed. As per the case of prosecution, the police authorities had found two persons present in the room and the contraband substance of Ganja worth 51 kilograms was also seized from the said premises. As per the case of prosecution, the premises from which the contraband substance had been seized belonged to the present applicant and he had given those rooms for use to the other co-accused who were found present in the room at the relevant time. However, except the statement of the co-accused there is no other material in this regard available on record. Considering the same, the application deserves consideration.

7. This court has 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 6.10.2024.

(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.

8. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the record produced in this case as well as taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of accusation, availability of the Applicant Accused at the time of Trial etc. and the role attributed to the present Applicant accused, the present Application deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. This Court has also gone through the FIR and police papers and also the earlier order passed by the learned Sessions Court where the learned Sessions Judge has disallowed the bail Application at initial stage. The Applicant Accused is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions that the applicant shall:

(a) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person a

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