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) 683

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J
BENIVA KANARAM RAMKISHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 2331 of 2025



Petitioner Advocates:POOJA D BASWAL(9601) ,Respondent Advocate: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)

Anticipatory bail may be granted if the applicant is not named in the FIR, has no requirement for custodial interrogation, and poses no flight risk.

Headnote:

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 482 and 483(2) - Anticipatory bail application - Applicant not named in FIR; allegations pertain to providing a vehicle used in transporting contraband - No custodial interrogation necessary as evidence already seized - Factors for bail considered include nature of accusation and applicant's antecedents - Application allowed with conditions for cooperation in investigation. (Paras 1.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0)

(B) Bail - Principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail - The court must exercise discretion judiciously, considering factors such as the gravity of the accusation and the possibility of the applicant fleeing justice - An elaborate examination of evidence is avoided at the bail stage. (Paras 4.0, 5.0)

ORDER :

RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State of Gujarat.

1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “ BNSS ”), the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11191010240287 of 2024 registered with Madhavpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 116-B, 81, 83 and 98(2) of the Prohibition Act.

2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The allegation is that he has provided the vehicle to accused No.2 and said vehicle was found transporting the contraband IMFL and intercepted. Further, whatever muddamal was there i.e. 423 bottles has already been seized and now nothing remains to be recovered or discovered from the present applicant and therefore, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that custodial interrogation of the applicant is required and therefore, he has requested to dismiss the present application.

4. Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided. I have considered the following aspects.

(1) Offence is not punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty and triable by the Court of JMFC;

(2) The allegation is that he has provided the vehicle to accused No.2 and said vehicle was found transporting the contraband IMFL and intercepted. Further, whatever muddamal was there i.e. 423 bottles has already been seized;

(3) No case for custodial interrogation is made out;

(4) Nothing is required to be recovered or discovered;

(5) Applicant is not named in the FIR.

5. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 6941 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665 and also the decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1 I am inclined to allow the present application.

6. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest / appearance of the applicant in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11191010240287 of 2024 registered with Madhavpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that applicant :

(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself

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