HARESHBHAI MATRABHAI GIDA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed under sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection with the FIR No. 11211009210294/2021 registered with Chotila Police Station, Surendranagar for offences punishable under Sec. 8(B) , 8(C) , 20(a)(i) , 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

(2.) Mr. Tirmizi, learned advocate for the applicant, referring to the charge-sheet, submitted that the statement which has been recorded of a witness is a day after the arrest of the applicant and thus, relying on the order in the case of Adamali Yusufali Mandali Vs. The State of Gujarat, passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) no.3671/96, Mr. Tirmizi submits that any material subsequent to the arrest would be sufficient cause to show that it was later on formed to create a case against the accused and thus, on that ground, has prayed for bail. Further, Mr. Tirmizi has placed reliance in the case of Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal & Anr. Vs. Union of India, passed in Criminal Appeal No.1273/2021 on 25/10/2021 and in the case of Bharat Chaudhary Vs. Union of India, passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No.5703/2021 on 13/12/2021, to submit that the statement of the co-accused cannot be believed even at the stage of bail.

(3.) Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned APP submits that the statement of the co-accused is required to be taken note of since on the information given by the co-accused, the present applicant came to be arrested. He further submits that the statement of the witness - Nitin Somabhai Baliya itself suggests that the contraband was transported in the vehicle at the house of the applicant and co-accused had purchased the same from the present applicant and thus, urges to reject the bail application.