HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY, J
AKBAR YUNUSHBHAI CHHIPA (AKBAR @ CHHIPA S/O YUNUSHBHAI CHHIPA) – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 5905 of 2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 483 - Application for regular bail in drug-related offence - The applicant sought bail based on the nature of the offence and lack of substantial evidence linking them to the crime. The prosecution cited serious charges and communication with co-accused as grounds for denial. (Paras 2-4)
(B) Bail Considerations - The court considered factors including prima facie case, the applicant's presence at trial, and risk of witness tampering. The applicant was in custody since 10.12.2024, and the court found sufficient grounds to exercise discretion in granting bail. (Paras 6-7)
(C) Conditions of Bail - The court imposed several conditions upon granting bail, including non-interference with witnesses, maintaining law and order, and providing residential and contact information. (Paras 7-8)
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the applicant should be granted bail despite serious allegations, as the evidence was not conclusive.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the evidence and allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the lack of substantial evidence warranted the exercise of discretion to grant bail, emphasizing that the trial court should not be influenced by prima facie observations.
Result: Application allowed.
ORDER :
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.11191011240295 of 2024 registered with D.C.B. 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 present applicant was proposed to receive the quantity of contraband substance mephedrone worth 20 gms from the other co-accused and there are telephone call details between the present applicant and other co-accused which indicates that the present applicant and other co-accused were in constant touch through the mobile phone and monitory transactions also taken place between the two. 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 police authorities had nabbed the other co-accused with conscious possession of contraband substance mephedrone worth 256 gms. It is the case of the prosecution that out of the aforesaid contraband substance, 20 gms of mephedrone was to be supplied to the present applicant and for the said purpose, monitory transaction had also been taken place between the present applicant and the other co-accused. However, except the statement of the other co-accused and some call details, there is no other material available 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 10.12.2024.
(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/- (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 num
The court may grant bail if the evidence does not establish a prima facie case against the applicant, despite serious charges.
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 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 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 even in serious offences if conditions are imposed to ensure the accused's presence and prevent evidence tampering.
The court granted bail due to insufficient evidence connecting the applicant to the offence, emphasizing the need for substantial proof in bail applications.
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 granted bail based on the applicant's custody duration and lack of flight risk, emphasizing the need for conditions to prevent tampering with evidence.
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 nature of allegations and imposed conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and ensure the applicant's presence at trial.
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.