IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 7002 of 2022 ==========================================================

JOKIKUMAR MAHESHBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

JAYDEEP H SINDHI(9585) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR LB DABHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Date : 07/04/2022

ORAL ORDER

[1] Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.

[2] RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent – State.

[3] By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.11200019220346 of 2022 registered with Dungri Police Station, District Valsad for the offences under Sections 65(a)(e), 98(2) and 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

[4] Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation of the applicant at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation, as well as trial also and will not flee from justice. He

NEUTRAL CITATION

undefined

with the alleged incident and he was not found at the scene of offence as well as there is no any adverse possession or recovery of the prohibited muddamals from him or from his house. He has also submitted that no evidence against the applicant or any alleged recovery or discovery is made from the possession of the applicant, which makes him liable to get arrested. He has submitted that the applicant was not available on the spot as well not connected with the offence, and he is arraigned as an accused on the basis of simply named by the accused no.1 and hence, he is falsely implicated in the present case.

[5] Learned advocate for the applicant, on instructions, states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions, including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of investigating agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He further submits that upon filing of such application by the investigating agency, the right of the applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. Learned advocate, therefore, submits that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted bail.

[6] On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent– State has opposed grant of bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

[7] Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of

NEUTRAL CITATION

undefined

evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

[8] This Court has considered following aspects;

(a) Prima facie, there is no evidence to connect the applicant with the alleged incident;

(b) The applicant was not found at the scene of offence, and there is no any adverse possession or recovery of the prohibited muddamals from him or from his house;

(c) There is no antecedent against the present applicant; looking to the over all facts and circumstances of the present case, I am inclined to consider the case of the applicant.

(d) Prima facie considering the facts of the case, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary at this stage;

[9] This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (Nct of Delhi), AIR 2020 SC 831 and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 2011 SC 312.

[10] In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document