Priyam Prabhatshinh Bihola vs State Of Gujarat

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned Advocate Mr. Malaykumar S. Patel on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi on behalf of the respondent-State.

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

By way of this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant – original accused prays for being released on anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.- 11192030220219 of 2022 registered with Kanbha Police Station, Ahmedabad Rural on 2.6.2022 for offences punishable under Sections 65(a), 65(e),116-B, 81 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned Advocate Mr. Malaykumar S. Patel for the applicant would submit that prohibited liquor was recovered near the farm of the present applicant and whereas beyond such recovery there is nothing to show that the goods in question belong to the present applicant. The applicant is working in ONGC and is a permanent resident of Taluka Daskoi, Ahmedabad.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

Considering the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Patel and learned APP Mr. L.B. Dabhi without discussing the evidence in detail, this Court proposes to note the following aspects which has been taken into consideration.

[1] That the prohibited liquor was recovered near the farm of the present applicant and whereas beyond such recovery there is nothing to show that the goods in question belong to the present applicant;

[2] It also appears that the present applicant is having one antecedent of being involved in a similar offence and whereas considering the aspect noted hereinabove that there is no material to link the prohibited liquor to the present applicant, the fact of there being an antecedent may not have much of a relevance;

[3] This Court has also considered the fact that the present applicant is stated to be working with the ONGC and is a permanent resident of Taluka Daskoi, Ahmedabad.

Having regard to the circumstances in question, and considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011)1 SCC 694, this Court is inclined to consider this application.

Learned Advocates for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.

In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR No.- 11192030220219 of 2022 registered with Kanbha Police Station, Ahmedabad Rural on 2.6.2022 the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of like amount, on the following conditions:

(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;

(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 17.8.2022 between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;

(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the Police;

(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change his residence till the final disposal of the case or till further orders;

(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if having passports shall surrender the same before the Trial Court within a week.

(g) shall mark his presence in every month (on 1st Monday) for a period of next three months at the concerned Police Station.

Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to file an application for police remand of the applicant to the competent Magistrate, if he thinks it just and proper and learned Magistrate would decide it on merits. The applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if ultimately granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicant, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order.

At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted.