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) 895

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 4728 of 2025 ==========================================================
ASIF @ BAVA AFAK AHMEED KHAN @ JAVED KHAN Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================
Appearance:
MR A B CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE FOR MR GAJENDRA P BAGHEL(2968) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR SHAMBHUKUMAR(13426) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR MEET THAKKAR, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 26/03/2025

Petitioner Advocates:MR GAJENDRA P BAGHEL(2968) ,Respondent Advocate: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)

The court granted bail due to insufficient evidence connecting the applicant to the offence, emphasizing the need for substantial proof in bail applications.

Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhit, 2023 - Section 483 - Application for regular bail - The applicant was accused of supplying contraband substance of Mephedrone worth 1 kg to co-accused, with limited evidence connecting him to the offence - The court considered the nature of allegations and the absence of substantial evidence, allowing bail with conditions. (Paras 2, 5, 7, 8)

(B) Bail - Conditions for bail - The court imposed conditions to ensure the applicant does not misuse the liberty granted, including surrendering passport and marking presence at the police station. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The applicant is accused of supplying Mephedrone to co-accused, with the prosecution relying on call details and co-accused statements, but lacking substantial evidence.

Findings of Court:
The court found it appropriate to grant bail considering the nature of allegations and the evidence presented.

Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant should be granted bail given the nature of the offence and the evidence against him.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of substantial evidence connecting the applicant to the offence warranted the exercise of discretion in granting bail.

Result: The present application is allowed.

ORDER :

1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

2. The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhit, 2023, for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.NO. 11210061240192 of 2024 registered with Lalgate Police Station, Surat.

3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

4. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the present application, inter alia, contending that the present applicant had supplied the stock of contraband substance of Mephedrone worth 1 kg to the other co-accused and had also collected money for the said purpose through the other co-accused. The present applicant was in constant touch with the other co-accused and there are several call details between the present applicant and the other co-accused. Moreover, there are financial transactions between the present applicant and other co-accused. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application.

5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. In present case, 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 contraband substance of Mephedrone worth 1 kg and allegedly the said substance had been supplied to him by the present applicant. However, except the statement of co-accused and some call details, there is no other material connecting the present applicant with the offence in question.

6. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

8. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail, on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;

(a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

(b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution & shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and shall not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

(c) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week;

(d) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Trial Court concerned;

(e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in a month for a period of six months between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

(f) furnish the present address of his residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of Trial Court;

9. The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter.

10. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law.

11. At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.

12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is p

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