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) 782

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 3786 of 2025 ==========================================================
DHANRAJSINH MAHIPATSINH CHAUHAN Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TEJAS M. BAROT, SR.ADVOCATE with ARBAAZKHAN A PATHAN (9532) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MOHAMADZAID I SAIYED(8411) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR KANVA M. ANTANI, APP for the Respondent No.1 ==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 20/03/2025

Petitioner Advocates:ARBAAZKHAN A PATHAN (9532) ,Respondent Advocate: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)

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.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - Section 483 - Application for regular bail - Applicant charged with possession of controlled substances - Court considers factors including prima facie case, likelihood of fleeing, and tampering with evidence - Application allowed with conditions imposed. (Paras 2, 6, 7, 8)

(B) Bail - Conditions for granting bail - The court must ensure that the accused does not tamper with evidence, maintain law and order, and provide accurate residential information. (Paras 8, 10)

Facts of the case:
The Applicant sought bail in connection with an FIR for possession of cough syrup containing codeine phosphate, with prior custody since 14.10.2024 and a charge-sheet filed. The prosecution argued against bail due to the nature of the offense and prior antecedents.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the application for bail deserved consideration based on the nature of allegations and the applicant's circumstances.

Issues: The main issues included the applicant's likelihood of fleeing, the gravity of the offense, and the potential for tampering with evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to balance the rights of the accused with the seriousness of the charges, allowing bail while imposing strict conditions to ensure compliance and prevent interference with the trial.

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. 11192008240510 of 2024 registered with Bavla Police Station. Ahmedabad Rural.

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 was found on conscious possession of 120 bottles of cough syrup containing codeine phosphate. There are several other antecedents against the present applicant and there are monetary transactions between the present applicant and 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 the prosecution, the present applicant was found in conscious possession of 122 bottles of cough syrup containing codeine phosphate. Those bottles as per the record, were given to the applicant by the other co-accused. Having regard to these facts, 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 14.10.2024.

(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 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 sureti

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