RAMESHCHANDRA FATEHSINGH DAVAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed by the applicant praying for an order of anticipatory bail in connection with FIR, being C.R. No. III/53/2018 registered with Kawant Police Station, Chhota Udaipur for the offence punishable under Ss. 65E and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

(2.) This application praying for anticipatory bail in connection with other offence, being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.4779 of 2023, has come to be rejected today by assigning reasons. However, in this case also he is involved in the offence registered in the year 2018 and similar arguments are made that he is not responsible for the offence because he is sought to be involved by the statement of the co-accused. However, against the co-accused, as coming out from his own application for anticipatory bail filed on 11/2/2022 before the Court of Sessions reflects that charge-sheet into the said case came to be filed on 5/1/2019 and the case against him is registered as Criminal Case No.15 of 2019. As coming out from the application filed by him before the Court of Sessions as also the order, he is also supplier of the said prohibition article recovered from main accused - Ashwinbhai Jayantibhai Rathwa and his application for anticipatory bail came to be rejected on 15/2/2022 and thereafter till filing of this application before the High Court, which is affirmed on 18/1/2023, he remained absconding consciously. As detailed reasons are assigned in the earlier application rejecting the anticipatory bail application, I may not deal with in detail all the submissions made. Suffice it to say that the person whose anticipatory bail application is rejected a year back gone remaining absconding and he is praying for an order of anticipatory bail, that too, for an offence of the year 2018, and therefore, he does not deserve discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. He is also having criminal antecedents not only in the present Police Station but at other Police Station of the District for similar offence, and therefore, he does not deserve an order of anticipatory bail. Hence, the present application is rejected.