Deepak Fakir Nayak vs State Of Gujarat

Sangeeta K. Vishen, J

The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in connection with the FIR being III

CR No.154 of 2018 registered with Mahidharpura Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 8(C), 20(C) and 29 of the Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Heard Mr.B.C. Dave, learned advocate for the applicant and Ms.Nisha Thakor, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State,

through video conference.

Mr.Dave, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by

imposing suitable conditions. It is submitted that on the basis of secret information received, the police personnel have intercepted auto rickshaw,

wherein three persons sitting in the auto rickshaw as well as auto rickshaw driver were found in possession of the contraband article including the

applicant. It is submitted that so far as the applicant is concerned, it is not clear that from whom and whose bag, the contraband article was recovered.

It is next submitted that the co-accused with the similar roles have been granted regular bail by this Court by passing orders viz. order dated 30.8.2018

passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.14780 of 2018; order dated 5.7.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.7989 of 2019; and order dated

11.11.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.7988 of 2019. It is submitted that in absence of any specific role attributed to the applicant, on the

ground of parity, the case of the applicant be considered. It is submitted that the applicant is aged 26 years and is in jail since 11.4.2018.

On the other hand, Ms.Thakor, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State has opposed this application looking to the

nature and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that the applicant cannot and should not claim parity with the other co-accused inasmuch as so far as

one of the accused is concerned, she being a lady accused, her case was considered. So far as other co-accused Sarthi Niranjan Sahu, he was merely

an auto rickshaw driver. Similarly, so far as co-accused Dipak alias Dipu Mangalu Shetti is concerned, the only allegation made by the prosecution is

that he was in touch with the persons who were carrying the contraband article from the railway station.

Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material available on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case,

nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, so also the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs.

Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, without discussing the evidence in detail, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case

to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

This Court has considered the aspects, viz. (a) the applicant is in jail since 11.4.2018;Â (b) investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed; (c) as is

discernible from the charge-sheet, no specific role has been attributed to the accused and that all the accused were jointly found in possession of the

contraband article. The co-accused with almost similar roles have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 30.8.2018 passed in Criminal Misc.

Application No.14780 of 2018; order dated 5.7.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.7989 of 2019; and order dated 11.11.2019 passed in

Criminal Misc. Application No.7988 of 2019. Thus, this Court is inclined to exercise discretion on the ground of parity.

Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR being III CR No.154 of

2018 registered with Mahidharpura Police Station, Surat, 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 the applicant shall â€

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

(b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

(c) surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

(d) mark presence before the DCP, Zone-3, Surat, on every Monday of every English calendar month till the completin of trial between 11.00 a.m.

and 2.00 p.m.;

(e) not to leave the revenue limits of Surat till the completion of trial;

(f) furnish the present address of 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 the concerned trial Court;

The authorities shall adhere to its own circular regarding COVID-19 and thereafter 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 learned Sessions Judge concerned will be free to

issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. 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.

Needless to say, at the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.

Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Registry to communicate this order to the concerned court / jail authority through fax or e-mail,

forthwith.