STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KEYUR MANUBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present application under Sec. 439(2) read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed for the purpose of seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent- accused by learned Additional Sessions Court, Navsari in Criminal Misc. Application No.527 of 2017 on 13/6/2017.

(2.) The case of the applicant is that pursuant to FIR being C.R. No.III-115 of 2015, lodged at Gandevi Police Station, Navsari, against respondent along with other accused persons for offences punishable under Sec. 66(C)(B) , 65(A)(E) and 116(2) read with Ss. 81 , 98 and 99 of the Prohibition Act. The respondent apprehending his arrest had approached learned Sessions Judge under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for seeking anticipatory bail, which came to be registered as Criminal Misc. Application No.527 of 2017. Learned Sessions Judge after considering the material on record, appears to have exercised due discretion and passed an order on 13/6/2017 granting protection to the present respondent under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Soni appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that present respondent is arraigned in series of offences of prohibition and looking to the quantity to the extent of Rs.2,82,000.00 such contraband material has involved him in a serious crime. It has been submitted that on the contrary, on account of the conduct of respondent, the declaration is made as proclaimed offender and learned Sessions Judge ought not to have considered the request of respondent-accused. However, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has then candidly submitted that this application is filed for the purpose of seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail, but after passage of time, after thorough investigation, charge-sheet has already been submitted on 25/12/2018 and case is also registered as Criminal Case No.5562 of 2019 and is at the stage of framing of charge and has candidly submitted that there is no violation of any of the conditions engrafted in the order granting anticipatory bail and there is no such subsequent event which may warrant the Court to exercise discretion for cancellation and has left the matter to the discretion of the Court.