Back
2025 Supreme(GUJ) 939
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY, J
MOIUDDIN @ MOIN BAPU YASINMIYA SAIYED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 5745 of 2025
Repeated bail applications require significant changes in circumstances; attempts to tamper with evidence justify denial of bail.
Headnote:
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D, 34, 120B - Application for bail - The applicant sought bail after being arrested for offences related to counterfeit currency - The court noted that the applicant's previous bail applications were dismissed due to the presence of incriminating evidence and the risk of tampering with witnesses - The affidavit from the co-accused's wife raised concerns about police coercion but was deemed unreliable due to the delay in its submission - The court found no change in circumstances warranting bail. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Bail - The court emphasized that repeated applications for bail require a significant change in circumstances to be considered - The applicant's actions indicated an attempt to influence witnesses, justifying the denial of bail. (Paras 5.1-5.3)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was arrested for involvement in a counterfeit currency operation, with evidence including witness statements linking him to the crime. Previous bail applications were dismissed based on the strength of the prosecution's case and concerns over witness tampering.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant posed a risk of influencing witnesses and that no new evidence justified granting bail.
Issues: The main issues included whether there was a change in circumstances since the last bail application and the credibility of the affidavit submitted by the co-accused's wife.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's actions indicated an attempt to tamper with evidence, and the affidavit lacked credibility due to its delayed submission.
Result: Application dismissed with costs.
ORDER :
1. 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.11201002240011 of 2024 registered with CID Crime, Ahmedabad Zone Police Station, District:Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D, 34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Saquib S. Ansari appearing for the applicant and learned APP Ms.Divyangna Jhala for the Respondent – State.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that in the present offence, investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. The present applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 14.6.2024 and since then the applicant is in custody.
3.1 Earlier the applicant had filed Criminal Misc. Application No.20955 of 2024 which came to be dismissed by this court vide order dated 24.10.2024. In the said order this court had referred to the statement of the wife of the co-accused who had identified the present applicant and had stated that the applicant had gone to her house to meet her husband, who is the co-accused.
3.2 After the aforesaid application was dismissed by this court, the wife of the co-accused namely Monika Satishkumar Jinwa has affirmed an affidavit wherein she has stated that the police officials from Gujarat had gone to her house on 16.6.2024 and they had shown her the photograph of one person, who had beard, and had instructed her to state in the statement that the person in the photograph used to come to her place and meet her husband. She was also threatened that if she did not state what she was asked to state, she would be booked in a false case. Thus, the statement of the wife of the co-accused was recorded by the police officials under threat. There is a change in circumstances after the earlier bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed by this court.
3.2 He also submitted that the present applicant and the other co-accused have also filed Special Criminal Application before this court praying for inquiry into the allegations made by the said Monika in her affidavit. He submitted that the investigation of the offence has not been carried out in a free and fair manner by the investigating agency. He, therefore, submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the present applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions.
4. The application is opposed by learned APP contending that the applicant herein has tried to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution and has made the prosecution witnesses namely Monika to file an affidavit which has been pressed into service by the applicant. Moreover, the present is the successive bail application filed by the applicant and since there has been no change in circumstances, the application is not maintainable. She therefore submitted to dismiss the present application.
5. This Court has considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties and has also perused the material placed on record. At the outset, it is required to be noted that this is the third successive application filed by the applicant seeking regular bail in the present offence. The applicant had earlier preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.14298 of 2024 which was dismissed by this court vide order dated 26.7.2024. Thereafter the applicant had preferred another application being Criminal Misc. Application No.20955 of 2024 which also came to be dismissed by this court vide order dated 24.10.2024. While dismissing the said application, this court had observed as under.
“5. This Court has considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties and has also perused the material placed on record. Earlier the applicant had filed Criminal Misc. Application No.14298 of 2024 which was dismissed vide order dated 26.7.2024. while dismissing the said application this court in its order, in particular para 5,
