ORAL ORDER

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

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.11195018220771/2022 registered with Dhanera Police Station, District Banaskantha, for the offences punishable under Sections 65-A, 65(e), 116-B, 98(2), 99, 81, 83 of the Prohibition Act and under Section 465, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. It has been argued by the learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant is not doing any liquor business, and also not transporting any kind of liquors, and is not connected with liquor business. Therefore, the application is required to be granted.

3. Per contra, learned APP has argued that the involvement of the applicant is prima facie established of dealing with transportation of liquor worth 1,58,700/- with allegations of using of forged number plates of vehicles, and the offence was registered in the year 2022, and the present applicant was shown as absconded till today. The co-accused has already given the statement that the said liquor was filled up by the present applicant and the same was to be delivered, and after reaching Palanpur, the accused no. 1 i.e. Hitesh Pradeep Kumar Sahejram was supposed to call accused no. 2 i.e., the present applicant, and the delivery was to be made to the person whom the present applicant informs.

4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties, this Court has considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides and considered the material placed on record. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii ) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused.

Though at the stage of granting bail execution and appreciation of evidence is not permissible. Having gone through the complaint, prima facie, it appears that the present applicant is involved in the offence.

5. The case of the present applicant is that the applicant was not aware of the aforesaid offences registered, and as soon as the applicant came to known about the same, the applicant filed an anticipatory bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deesa which was rejected.

5.1. Having heard learned advocate for the involvement of the applicant is prima facie established even by the statement of the accused i.e. the accused no. 1 who has categorically stated that the liquor was filled up by the present applicant, and it also stated that the said vehicle which was in the name of the accused no. 1 which was also purchased by the present applicant. The present applicant is also absconding and has not cooperated with the investigation. The said car also had wrong number plate.

6. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon’ble Court held that life and personal liberty are the most prized possessions of an individual but not at the cost of larger interest of society and public. This is not a case, wherein accused is falsely enraged in the offence with a view to tarnish his image. Considering the fact that the custodial interrogation is required. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash Singh Vs State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2012 4 SCC 379, has been pleased to hold as under:-

“Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offences are required to be satisfied and further whi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document