Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(GUJ) 519

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 2269 of 2025 ==========================================================
PRADEEP BHAGHWAN BAHERA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. KISHAN H DAIYA(6929) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. HARDIK S. SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 11/03/2025

Petitioner Advocates:MR. KISHAN H DAIYA(6929) ,Respondent Advocate: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)

The court granted bail based on insufficient evidence against the Applicant and the absence of prior criminal history, emphasizing the need for conditions to ensure compliance.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Application for Regular Bail - The Applicant sought bail in connection with a FIR for possession of contraband substance ganja worth 25 Kgs. - The court considered the lack of direct evidence against the Applicant and the absence of prior criminal antecedents. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Bail Considerations - The court emphasized the need to evaluate prima facie case, the likelihood of the Applicant fleeing, and the potential for witness tampering. (Para 5)

Facts of the case:
The Applicant was accused of intending to receive a stock of ganja, but was not found in possession of the substance. The investigation was complete, and the charge sheet had been filed.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Applicant's application for bail deserved consideration due to the lack of substantial evidence against him.

Issues: The main issues included the nature of the evidence against the Applicant and the conditions for granting bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of direct evidence and the Applicant's good reputation warranted the granting of bail, while also imposing specific conditions to ensure compliance.

Result: Application for bail allowed.

ORDER :

(M.R. MENGDEY, J.)

1. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11210070240780 of 2024 registered with Bhestan Police Station, Surat City.

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

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

3. 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.

4. Per contra, learned APP has opposed the present application for grant of regular bail contending that the Applicant was proposed to receive the stock of contraband substance ganja worth 25 Kgs. The location of the present Applicant was at the place from where the said contraband substance ganja has been recovered which indicates tha the Applicant had come there to receive the said substance. Learned APP has therefore submitted that looking to the nature of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the Application may be dismissed.

5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. The investigation is over and charge sheet is filed. As per the case of the prosecution, the role attributed to the Applicant is to the effect that the Applicant was supposed to receive the stock of contraband substance ganja worth 25 Kgs. which has been seized from the possession of the other co- accused. Admittedly the Applicant was not found in conscious possession of any such substance. Moreover except the statement of the co-accused, there is no other material connecting the Applicant with the offence in question nor the Applicant is having any other antecedents. Considering this aspect, the Application deserves consideration. 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.

(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.

6. 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 he shall:

(a) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence.

(b) maintain law and order and not to indulge in any criminal activities.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document