Binay Rameshchandra Rusat vs State Of Gujarat

Samir J. Dave, J

By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered as C.R. No. 11192050220151 of 2022 with Sanand Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 407, 420, 285 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

Mr. Vatsal S. Parikh, learned advocate for the applicant submits that, the applicant is totally innocent and has not played any role in the alleged offence, however, he has been falsely implicated in the present offence. He has submitted that the applicant was not present at the place of incident and is falsely implicated on the base of co-accused statement. Moreover, the owner of godown of Bhavna Transport, the premises from which the stolen chemical was found during the raid, has not even been arraigned as an accused, whereby the present applicant, who is neither present at the time of commission of the offence nor is the owner of the said premises, came to be falsely implicated in the alleged offence.

He has further submitted that the main accused as well as other co-accused, who were caught red-handed have all been enlarged on regular bail. Also, the accused No. 6, who had fled from the scene of offence, has been granted anticipatory bail. Therefore, he further urges that the applicant may also be granted anticipatory bail on suitable terms and conditions that may deem fit and proper to the Court to which, the present applicant has assured to abide by such conditions.

While opposing the present bail application, Ms. Monali H. Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State submits that the applicant is actively involved in the offence and the investigation is still going on, and therefore, she has submitted that no discretionary power may be exercised in favour of the present applicant at this stage. She has further submitted that the present applicant is one of the conspirators in committing the said theft of chemical from the tanker and therefore, she has prayed to reject the present application.

Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, and considering the material placed by the respective parties, wherefrom it reflects, as alleged by the prosecution that the present applicant had shared the contact of co-accused to the main accused for the purpose of carrying out theft of chemical from the tanker. Moreover, it also reflects that the present applicant had hired labourers on wage, to carry and transfer the stolen chemical from the tanker on his direction in the premises of Bhavna Transport. Hence, in view of the aforesaid, prima-facie involvement of the present applicant in the alleged offence cannot be ruled out at this stage. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the discretionary power cannot be exercised in favour of the applicant.

In view of the aforesaid and considering the criminal antecedents against the present applicant, more particularly, the role attributed to the present applicant as discussed above and keeping in mind the law and proposition laid down by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case like the case on hand wherein the applicant seems to have extended its role which dis-entitles him to have the benefit of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694, and therefore, the present application is required to be rejected. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court doesn’t find any substance in the present application so as to exercise the discretionary power in favour of the applicant to enlarge him on anticipatory bail for the aforesaid reasons.

Hence, no case seems to have been made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant and accordingly, present application stands rejected.