Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 708 (GUJ)

BHARATBHAI LIMBABHAI CHAVDA v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2022-05-26

SAMIR J.DAVE

body2022
ORDER : 1. 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. 11198015220375 of 2022 with Bortalav Police Station, Bhavnagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 65-A, 65(e), 116-B and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. 2. 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. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that there is no evidence either direct or indirect in respect of the offence connecting the applicant with the alleged offence. He submits that the applicant has been wrongly implicated in the offence wherein neither he was present, neither there is any possession of the applicant, nor in the house, from where the alleged liquor was found, belongs to the applicant. Therefore, he further urges that the applicant may 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. 3. While opposing the present bail application, Ms. Moxa Thakkar, 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 there are criminal antecedents against the present applicant and therefore, she prayed to reject the present application. 4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, and considering the material places by the respective parties where from it reflects as alleged by the prosecution that the present applicant with the help of co-accused had hidden a huge quantity of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) worth Rs. 2,59,200/- in a water tank situated in the house/plot possessed by the applicant. Hence, in view of the aforesaid, the applicant seems to have been alleged of having committed the present offence. So far as the role attributed to the present applicant is concerned, the applicant is alleged to have stored a huge quantity of Indian made foreign liquor worth Rs. Hence, in view of the aforesaid, the applicant seems to have been alleged of having committed the present offence. So far as the role attributed to the present applicant is concerned, the applicant is alleged to have stored a huge quantity of Indian made foreign liquor worth Rs. 2,59,200/- in the water tank situated in the house/plot possessed by him. It is also pertinent to note here that there are criminal antecedents against the present applicant, and therefore, prima-facie involvement of the present applicant in the alleged offence cannot be ruled out at this stage. 5. In the State of Gujarat, there is a prohibition in bootlegging the liquor and the provisions of the prohibition Act is made stringent so as to safe guard the young generations from antisocial activities, and therefore, considering the same as well as the fact that the investigation is still going on and the fact that the applicant has several criminal antecedents, the adverse impact on the society at large, so also, the role attributed to the present applicant, this Court is of the opinion that the discretionary power cannot be exercised in his favour. 6. 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 disentitles 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, (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. 7. Hence, no case seems to have been made out for grant of anticipatory bail and accordingly, the present application stands rejected.