Narayanlal Mithalal Suthar & Anr vs State Of Gujarat

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned advocate Mr. Rupaal V. Dave appearing on behalf of the applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Niraj Shrma appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

At the outset, learned Advocate Mr. Dave seeks permission to withdraw the present application insofar as the applicant No.1 is concerned, with liberty to approach the learned Sessions Court, after filing of the charge-sheet. Permission as sought for is granted. The present application stands disposed of as withdrawn qua the applicant No.1 only.

Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

The applicant No.2 has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11824004252548 of 2025 registered with Songadh Police Station, District Tapi, for the offence punishable under Sections 65(e), 81, 83 and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

Insofar as the applicant No. 2 is concerned, learned advocate would submit that the present applicant is wrongly implicated in the alleged offence. Learned Advocate would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail to the applicant No.2. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from the affidavit of the Investigating Officer, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

Having regard to the fact that the applicant has prayed for grant of regular bail, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

i. The applicant being the cleaner of the vehicle in which the prohibited liquor was being ferried.

ii. The fact that there is no antecedent against the present applicant.

iii. The fact of the applicant being aged 21 years.

iv. Apprehension of the learned APP that the applicant may abscond after being released since he is not resident of State of Gujarat, could be allayed by imposing suitable conditions.

This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant No.2 on regular bail.

Hence, the present application is allowed qua the applicant No.2 only. The applicant No. 2 - Jashvantsingh Navalsingh Sisodiya is ordered to be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. registered as C.R. No. 11824004252548 of 2025 registered with Songadh Police Station, District Tapi, on executing a 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 he 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 Court concerned;

[e] mark presence with the concerned Police Station once a week till the charge-sheet is filed, and thereafter once a month for a period of six months.

[f] furnish the proposed address of residence in the State of Gujarat to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior intimation to the I.O.

The Authorities 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 Court concerned will be free to 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.

At the stage of trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations of this Court which are of preliminary nature made at this stage, only for the purpose of considering the application of the applicant for being released on regular bail.

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.