LAWS(GJH)-2024-6-4

UMESH NARAYANBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On June 14, 2024
Umesh Narayanbhai Patel Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent - State of Gujarat. By way of the present application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11214042231055 of 2023 dtd. 27/7/2023 registered with Olpad Police Station, Surat Rural for the offence under Ss. 65-A, 65(e), 81, 98(2) and 116- B of the Prohibition Act.

(2.) Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and he has been falsely enroped in the offence and there is not an iota of evidence which can implicate the present applicant in the alleged offence. He is shown as wanted accused in the FIR but no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant. Further, applicant is not having any past antecedent. In the FIR it is alleged that the present applicant was proposed receiver of alleged 4383 bottles of Indian Made Liquor worth Rs.3,62,892.00 but nothing is recovered from the conscious possession of the present applicant and even the applicant is not found at the spot. Hence, nothing remains to be recovered or discovered from the present applicant and therefore, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail and stated that present applicant's name is mentioned in the FIR as wanted accused and applicant-accused has committed offence against the society and even in past also he has indulged in such activity. Thus, prima facie involvement of applicant is proved and hence, as custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, he has requested to dismiss the present application.