PATEL RITABEN MADHAVLAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant for regular bail in connection with an FIR being Prohibition C. R. No. I-184 of 2016 registered with Langhnaj Police Station, District: Mehsana for the offences under Sections 66(b) , 65(a)(e) , 116(b) and 81of the Prohibition Act.

(2.) Learned advocate for the applicant submits that considering the nature of allegations, role attributed to the applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. Learned advocate has also shown readiness and willingness to deposit Rs.50,000/- if the applicant is enlarged on bail.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant. He has submitted that in 18 different offences under the Prohibition Act , the applicant is involved, as observed by the trial court, while rejecting the bail application. If the applicant would be enlarged, she would indulge in such illegal activities and unnecessarily, the police machinery would be foist behind the applicant. He further submitted that no powers under Section 439 of the Code can be exercised in favour of the applicant while she is a habitual offender. In the alternative, it is submitted that if the Court is inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant, the applicant should deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- only by way of surety and if the applicant would indulge again in such activities, the amount would be required to be forfeited.