BHVANSINGBHAI RAMESHBHAI RATHVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for an order of anticipatory bail in connection with an offence registered at C.R. No.11207031220141 of 2022 with Jambughoda Police Station, Panchmahal for the offence punishable under Ss. 65 A, 65(e), 116 B and 98(2) of the Prohibition Act .

(2.) Mr. Vasimraja Kureshi, learned advocate for the applicant, submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR. He is also not the owner of the vehicle from where the prohibition mudammal article is found. He has further submitted that the owner of the vehicle, who is known, is not made an accused by the Police. He has further submitted that he is the member of Jilla Panchayat and his mother is the Sarpanch of village Jamla, Taluka Chotta Udepur. He has further submitted that the Police authority has not obeyed the dictum of Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 wherein it is held that Investigating Agency and its Officers are duty bound to comply with the mandate of Ss. 41 and 41 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and therefore, he has submitted that relying on the said dictum, Gauhati High Court in the case of Deep Jyoti Nath Vs. The State of Assam in Case No:Bail Appln./480/2023 relying on the decision of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra) granted bail to the accused. He has further submitted that the police authorities has not followed any proceedings as per the dictum of the Supreme Court, and therefore, he has prayed that he be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

(3.) Ms. Krina Calla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, pointed out that though the applicant is not named in the FIR, on prior information received through the informant that one Driver in silver coloured Innova car bearing registration no.GJ-09-AH-8010 is coming from Bodeli after loading the vehicle with Indian Made Foreign Liquor and he is to go to Halol through Jambughoda, the police authority alongwith the party kept a watch over the said route and when after placing barricades they were keeping watch, the Innova vehicle as per the information came in excessive speed and it was signaled to stop the vehicle but the driver of the vehicle did not stop and he breached the barricade and went towards Shivrajpur. The said vehicle was chased and the Police Officers of surrounding areas were also informed about the same. The driver of the vehicle abandoned the vehicle and eloped into the bushes by the side of the road. She has further submitted that on search being carried out of the vehicle, 348 bottles of 750 ml of Indian Made Foreign Liquor was found inside the vehicle. She has further submitted that during the course of investigation, inquiry about the ownership of vehicle was made and it was found that the vehicle stands in the name of Vikrambhai Kuberbhai Vankar, resident of Chotta Udepur and he was called for interrogation. On interrogation, it was found that the said vehicle, though registered in the name of Vikrambhai Kuberbhai Vankar, he has mortgaged the said vehicle to the applicant 1 1/2 years prior to the date of the statement i.e. 16/7/2022. Since then, the said vehicle is claimed to be with the present applicant. The statement of his wife - Hiraben Vikrambhai Kuberbhai Vanker was also recorded and she confirmed the same. Since, despite the name of the applicant revealed, he was out of reach of police and ultimately on 9/1/2023, warrant of arrest in the name of the applicant came to be issued by the competent Magistrate and exactly on that day, the present applicant appears to have filed an application for anticipatory bail before the sessions Court, and therefore, she has submitted that the applicant, who is a responsible citizen, has avoided his probable arrest and remained out of clutches of the Investigating Authority and did not even invoke the remedies available under the law till the warrant of arrest is issued, and therefore, she has submitted that the applicant does not deserve anticipatory bail, and therefore, this application be rejected.