The Gujarat High Court has granted anticipatory bail in the case of FIR C.R.No.11191002240101 of 2024 at Ranip Police Station. This judgement showcases the court’s careful consideration of the applicant’s plea and the arguments presented by the State. Stay informed about this crucial legal development. #AnticipatoryBail #GujaratHighCourt #LegalJudgement
Facts
- The applicant has filed a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- He is seeking anticipatory bail in case of his arrest related to FIR C.R.No.11191002240101 of 2024 at Ranip Police Station, Ahmedabad.
- The FIR accuses him of offences under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 81, 83, 98(2) and 116 of the Gujarat Prohibitions Act.
Arguments
- In the context of the nature and gravity of the offence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State has objected to the grant of anticipatory bail to the accused.
- The learned advocate for the applicant argues for the grant of anticipatory bail considering the allegations and the role ascribed to the petitioner.
- The court has heard arguments from both sides and reviewed the investigation papers before making a decision on the bail application.
Analysis
- Factors to be considered while considering an application for bail were outlined
- The Court must exercise discretion judiciously and strictly in line with established principles
- Citations of relevant cases such as Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterjee, Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, and Sushila Agarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) were mentioned
- The applicant in the present case was directed to be released on bail upon certain conditions
- The specified conditions included cooperation with the investigation, attendance at the Police Station, refraining from influencing witnesses, and not obstructing the investigation
- The applicant was also required to mark presence regularly until the investigation and trial were concluded
- Additional conditions included providing address information, surrendering passport if applicable, and obtaining permission before leaving the country
- Investigation is nearly completed with no further recovery or discovery needed from the applicant.
- The co-accused who had conspicuous possession of liquor has already been granted bail.
- The applicant has no prior criminal record or antecedents.
- The Apex Court’s guidance in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors has been considered.
- The applicant, accused as the owner of a luxury bus, was implicated based on co-accused statements but was not present at the scene or in possession of liquor.
- Granting bail should not involve detailed examination of evidence to avoid prejudicing the accused.
Decision
- The concerned Court has the authority to adjust the bail conditions as necessary.
- During the trial, the Trial Court should not be swayed by any remarks made by the higher court during the bail granting process.
- If the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions, the Trial Court has the right to take appropriate actions.
Case Title: OKH SINGH KHET SINGH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/CR.MA/9246/2024
