STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MOHMADHUSSEIN AHMADBHAI MEMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . [His Lordships after stating the facts of the case, further observed : ] xxx xxx xxx

(2.) . Trial Court in the instant case appears to have overlooked the facts relevant for considering bail in non-bailable case. Question is, if such relevant facts are overlooked, would this Court not interfere with the order of bail and cancel it ? Is it that, simply because the accused released on bail has not tried to interfere with in any manner with the administration of justice, this Court should permit to remain illegality? Despite rejection of relevant factors by the trial Court to grant bail, such bail order should not be interfered with ? Will this not amount to permit or condone arbitrary exercise of discretion conferred on the trial Court ? Is it that this Court cannot interfere with the order passed in total disregard of statutory provisions concerning bail ? Answer to all these questions, in my opinion, is that this Court can and should interfere with such bad orders. (Only a part of the Judgment approved for reporting is published.)

(3.) . It will be relevant to state that the Forensic Science Laboratory has opined that the substance found is opium and is a narcotic substance. It is also relevant to state that respondent is alleged to be the tenant of the premises and his son was found present at the time of raid. In view of this fact, there are all the probabilities that he may be held guilty. Thus, there is a strong prima facie case. Keeping in view the minimum punishment of imprisonment as well as fine provided for the offence it can be said that in all probabilities the accused may abscond to avoid evil day and imprisonment or may indulge into such activity again to make good the fine that may be imposed if he is continued on bail.