KIRTIBHAI GUNVANTBHAI WADHWANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.Laxmansinh Zala, learned advocate for the applicants and Mr.Pranav Trivedi, learned APP for the opponent State through video conference.

(2.) The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the First Information Report registered with the Wadhwan Police Station, Surendranagar vide III­C.R.No.147 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 65(A)(E), 80, 81, 83, 116(B) and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 and under Section 465, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that considering the nature of the offence, the applicants may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. He has submitted that this is prohibition case of huge amount however at the same time liquor has not been recovered from the possession of the present applicants and as per the FIR itself, it has been mentioned that the present applicants were standing near the car at CNG pump. He has further submitted that as per the FIR itself the applicants had not come in the truck containing prohibited liquor. He has also submitted that the applicants were caught on the spot but at the same time not from the truck containing the liquor or they have no concerned with the liquor in the truck. It is submitted that the applicants were standing near the car at CNG pump. He has also submitted that there is no other evidence except the statement of the present applicants accused before the police or statement of the coaccused. He has submitted that other co­ accused Girirajsinh Indubha and Salim Dilavarkhan Pathan have placed an application before the High Court quashing the FIR in which no coercive steps against those coaccused were granted and therefore this application for regular bail may be granted. He has also submitted that regular bail application of the truck driver and the cleaner, in which the liquor was found, were dismissed by this Court. But at the same time, the role of those accused and the role of the present applicant are different. In that case, the driver and the cleaner were in possession of the liquor whereas the present applicants were not in possession of the liquor. At last he has prayed that considering all these aspects and circumstances, present application may be granted.