AATMARAM RAMKUVAR KHAROL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present successive application under Sec. 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS"), the applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11195019240790 of 2024 registered with Deesa Rural Police Station, Banaskantha, for the offences punishable under Ss. 65(a), 65(e), 116B, 98(2) and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

(2.) Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence. Based on the statement of the co-accused, he has been arraigned as an accused; that muddamal recovered from the Eeco car belonged to accused No.1 and not of the applicant. Main accused is released on regular bail by JMFC, Deesa. Nothing is found from conscious possession of the applicant. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. He has further submitted that, earlier two accused including the applicant had preferred anticipatory bail application and this Court considering the conduct and past antecedents, not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. He further submitted that, the applicant is having three similar nature of antecedents and now after 30 days, once again present successive bail application is preferred without any changed circumstances. He has also drawn attention of this Court towards the fact that only with a view to mislead the Court and Investigating Officer, he has mentioned his address in cause title that he belongs to Bhilvada, Rajasthan. In fact, he is residing at Nikol, Ahmedabad. Till date, he is on run and not joined investigation. As per the allegation made in FIR, total 211 bottles of contraband liquor worth of Rs.1,18,940.00 which was concealed in Eeco car of co- accused and the same was to be delivered to the present applicant. Considering the aforesaid facts, involvement of the applicant is clearly revealed and hence, custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. Hence, application does not deserve any consideration.