Krishnadutt Sureshchandra Dubey Dvivedi vs State Of Gujarat

Rajendra M. Sareen, J

The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant for regular bail in connection with an FIR

being C.R.No.I-11210015210142 of 2021 registered with D.C.B. Police Station, Surat City for the offences under Sections 8(C), 22(C) and 29 of the

NDPS Act.

Heard Mr. Zubin Bharda, learned advocate for Mr. Kishan H. Daiya. It is submitted by Mr. Bharda, learned advocate for the applicant that the

applicant has been wrongly involved in the offence and applicant is innocent and has not committed such offence. The applicant is arrested wrongly

only as he accompanying to the main accused, from whom the muddamal was recovered. It is also submitted that no muddamal is recovered from the

applicant. The applicant was accompanying only in the car with the accused and was returning from Mumbai. The applicant is local resident of Surat

and not likely to flee away. There is no past antecedent of similar nature of the applicant. It is further submitted that considering the contents of the

FIR, papers and the charge-sheet and the nature of allegations, as well as, role attributed to the applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail

by imposing suitable conditions.

Mr. Kodekar, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has vehemently opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and

gravity of the offence. It is stated that prima facie case appears against the present applicant. The applicant has accompanied the accused no.1 while

coming back to Surat from Mumbai. The applicant has also helped the accused no.4 in transportation of contraband. The contraband is of commercial

quantity. The applicant was in contact with the main accused no.4 and if he released on bail, he will involve in similar type of activities and also there

are chances that he will give threat to the witnesses.

I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do

not invite reasoned order.

In the present case, total 79 gram of MD is recovered and it is recovered from the accused no.1 that is apparent. From the FIR, as well as, papers

of the charge-sheet it appears that the applicant has neither consumed drugs nor he has paddler of drugs. The only role attributed to the present

applicant is that he has knowledge that accused no.1 has purchased some drugs. The muddamal was seized from the accused no.1. The applicant has

only accompanied the accused no.1 and 4 to go to Mumbai and returned back. There are no antecedents of the present applicant.

This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau

Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, I am of the opinion that

discretion is required to be exercised in favour of the applicant and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

This Court has considered the following aspects:

(i) The applicant is in jail since 10th June, 2021;

(ii) Investigation is over and charge sheet is filed;

(iii) There is no other antecedent of the present applicant;

(iv) No particular role attributed towards the applicant;

(v) No recovery of discovery from the present applicant;

(vi) The applicant is alleged to have been in company of the accused no.1;

(vii) The applicant is local resident, not likely to flee away;

In the result, the present application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with an FIR being FIR being

C.R.No.I-11210015210142 of 2021 registered with D.C.B. Police Station, Surat City on executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen

Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and subject to the conditions that the applicant

shall;

[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] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;

[e] mark presence before the nearest Police Station once between 1st and 5th day of every English calendar month for a period of six months.;

[f] furnish latest and permanent 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 this Court.

The authorities shall adhere to its own Circular relating to COVID-19 and, thereafter, will 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 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.

Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Registry to communicate this order to the concerned Jail Authority by Fax or Email forthwith.

Direct service is permitted.