HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY, J
NIKULBHAI @ PAPDI RAJUBHAI THAKOR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 5934 of 2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 483 - Application for regular bail - The applicant contended that he has good reputation and should not remain in custody indefinitely. The prosecution opposed the bail, citing the applicant's alleged supply of contraband. The court found no substantial evidence connecting the applicant to the crime, allowing bail considering the nature of allegations and the applicant's custody duration. (Paras 2, 5, 6, 8)
(B) Bail considerations - The court must evaluate prima facie case, risk of flight, and potential for witness tampering. The applicant's willingness to comply with conditions was noted. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The applicant sought bail in connection with a drug-related FIR, asserting no useful purpose in continued detention. The prosecution claimed he supplied contraband to a co-accused, but evidence was limited to co-accused statements. (Paras 2, 5, 6)
Findings of Court:
The application for bail was granted based on the lack of substantial evidence against the applicant and consideration of the gravity of the accusations. (Paras 6, 8)
Issues: The court addressed whether the applicant posed a flight risk or a danger to witnesses, and the sufficiency of evidence against him. (Paras 6, 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that, in the absence of significant evidence linking the applicant to the crime and considering the applicant's compliance with bail conditions, bail should be granted. (Paras 6, 8)
Result: Application for bail allowed.
ORDER :
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. 11211058240398 of 2024 registered with Bajana Police Station. Surendranagar.
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 applicant had supplied the contraband substance worth 2.95 grams which had been seized from the other co-accused. 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 other co-accused was found in conscious possession of the contraband substance of Mephedrone worth 2.95 grams and the said contraband substance was allegedly supplied by the present applicant to the said other co-accused. However, except the statement of the co-accused, there is no other material connecting the present applicant with the offence in question. 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 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.
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 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.
(c) 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 the residence without prior permission of the trial Court.
(d) provide contact numbers as well as the contact numbers of the sureties before the Trial Court
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.
The court established that bail may be granted when continued detention is unjustified, considering the nature of allegations and evidence presented.
The court emphasized that prolonged custody without trial progress and lack of flight risk justifies granting bail, subject to specific conditions.
The court granted bail considering the nature of allegations, applicant's custody duration, and imposed conditions to prevent tampering with evidence.
The court emphasized the importance of assessing bail applications based on the nature of allegations, prior conduct, and the applicant's likelihood of appearing for trial.
The court granted bail considering the nature of the offence and the applicant's willingness to comply with conditions, emphasizing the balance between individual rights and public interest.
The court granted bail based on the applicant's circumstances, emphasizing the need for conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and ensure compliance with legal obligations.
The court emphasized that bail considerations involve evaluating the prima facie case, risk of flight, and potential tampering with evidence, allowing bail under strict conditions.
The court established criteria for granting bail, focusing on custody duration and gravity of the offence.
The court granted bail under Section 483 of BNSS, emphasizing the need for 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.