Gujarat High Court
Ravibhai Rajubhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 15 September, 2023
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1443/2023 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 1443 of 2023
==========================================================
RAVIBHAI RAJUBHAI PARMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SATISH A PANDYA(556) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
Date : 15/09/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Satish A. Pandya for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Dhawan Jayswal for the respondent-State.
2. By this Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), the applicant has prayed for bail in connection with the complaint being CR.No.11204047200032 Page 1 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 21 20:32:21 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1443/2023 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2023 undefined registered with Nadiad Western Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 489A, 489C, 489D and section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC')
3. This is a second Successive Bail Application preferred by the applicant. Earlier after filing the charge-sheet, Bail Application being Criminal Misc. Application No.21916/2021 preferred by the applicant was withdrawn by an order dated 24.02.2022.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Satish Pandya for the applicant submitted that applicant herein is original accused no.3 in the FIR and the allegation against the applicant in the FIR and the charge-sheet is that he abetted original accused no.1 Page 2 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 21 20:32:21 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1443/2023 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2023 undefined Shailendrasinh Janaksinh Parmar in printing the fake counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 500/- and the said currency notes as well printing machine were found in the house of the applicant herein.
5. It was submitted that though trial has commenced, till date only seven witnesses have been examined and neither any witness has supported the case of the prosecution nor the prosecution has been successful in proving the prima facie involvement of the applicant herein in the said offence. It was submitted that the panch witnesses have stated in the trial that they had seen the currency notes in the police station and such currency notes were seized in police station and not in the house of the applicant herein, which according to the learned advocate for the Page 3 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 21 20:32:21 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1443/2023 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2023 undefined applicant is a change of circumstances. It was further submitted that all the seven witnesses have turned hostile and therefore, this Court may be pleased to grant bail to the applicant.
6. It was submitted that the applicant was arrested on 07.02.2022 and till date seven witnesses have been examined whereas about 36 witnesses are to be examined and therefore, trial is not likely to get over in near future and therefore, without any reason the applicant would have to remain in jail till trail gets completed. It was submitted that denial of bail before completing the trial would curtail the fundamental right i.e. liberty of life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Page 4 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 21 20:32:21 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1443/2023 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2023 undefined
7. It was submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and the Investigating Officer has falsely implicated him in the said case and therefore, this Court may be pleased to granted bail to the applicant.
8. It was submitted that the charge-sheet is already filed on 31.03.2020 before the concerned Court and there is no likelihood of the applicant tampering or hampering with the investigation or the witnesses. It was submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. It was further submitted that the applicant has family and land in his village and the applicant is a law abiding citizen and would abide by any condition which this Court may impose while granting the bail.
9. It was further submitted that none of Page 5 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 21 20:32:21 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1443/2023 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2023 undefined the ingredients of offences under Sections 489A, 489C, 489D and section 120B of the Indian Penal Code are attracted as the prosecution is not in a position to show a single evidence against the applicant.
10. It was submitted that the entire story of prosecution depends upon statement of co-accused Shailendrasinh Janaksinh Parmar. It was submitted that by now it is well settled that statement of the co- accused is not admissible in the evidence under section 25 of the Evidence Act and therefore, this Court may be pleased to grant bail to the applicant on any condition that this Court may deem fit.
11. Relying upon the judgment in case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, it was submitted that when there Page 6 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 21 20:32:21 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1443/2023 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2023 undefined is likelihood of delay in the trial, bail should be granted to the accused. He relied upon the following observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment:
"26) When the undertrial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to speedy trial, the question is whether the same is possible in the present case. There are seventeen accused persons.
Statement of the witnesses runs to several hundred pages and the documents on which reliance is placed by the prosecution, is voluminous. The trial may take considerable time and it looks to us that the appellants, who are in jail, have to remain in jail longer than the period of detention, had they been convicted. It is not in the interest of justice that accused should be in jail for an indefinite period. No doubt, the offence alleged against the appellants is a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should not deter us from enlarging the appellants on bail when there is no serious contention of the respondent that the accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with Page 7 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 21 20:32:21 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1443/2023 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2023 undefined evidence. We do not see any good reason to detain the accused in custody, that too, after the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet."
12. It was therefore, submitted that it would not be proper to detain the accused in the custody that too after completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet and therefore, this Court may be pleased to enlarge the applicant on bail on any condition that this Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.
13. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Dhawan Jayswal for the respondent-State submitted that the applicant is not required to be enlarged on bail considering the fact that this is a second successive Bail Application and the applicant has failed to point out any change in the circumstances for granting Page 8 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 21 20:32:21 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1443/2023 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2023 undefined the bail. Learned APP Mr. Jayswal also placed reliance on decision of this Court in case of Arvindkumar Chenaji Barot v. State of Gujarat (Judgment dated 22.07.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.7066 of 2022) to submit that this Court in absence of any new ground being canvassed by the applicant after rejection of the earlier bail application, had rejected the successive bail application. It was therefore submitted that the applicant cannot be and should not be enlarged on bail.
14. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that grounds stated by the applicant in the successive bail application as well as those submitted Page 9 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 21 20:32:21 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1443/2023 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2023 undefined before this Court during his submission, cannot be said to be the change in circumstances for enlarging the applicant on bail, more particularly, when the trial is underway.
15. This Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following decisions has time and again held that in the Successive Bail Application, the Court should not exercise the discretion to enlarge the applicant-accused person on bail:
(1) In case of Shyamdutt Upadhyay and Another v. State of Gujarat reported in 1992(1) GLH 259, wherein this Court has held as under:
"4. ... When a Court is not inclined to grant the bail, it would give some reasons rejecting the application, Page 10 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 21 20:32:21 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1443/2023 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2023 undefined which might come in the way of the accused during the trial and because of that the Advocate for the accused would prefer to withdraw the application instead of getting the application rejected with reasons. In such an event the subsequent bail application of the same accused cannot be entertained, unless and until fresh circumstance or ground is made out by the accused for releasing him on bail. In this case, no new ground is made out by the petitioners for releasing them on bail. Therefore, this application is required to be rejected."
(2) In case of State of Gujarat v.Alpeshbhai Navinbhai Patel reported in 2004(1) GLH 754, wherein this Court has held as under:
"9. ...Normally, the substantial change in the circumstances are being considered stage wise, i.e. (i) at the stage of considering the matter for granting anticipatory bail, (ii) at the stage of considering the matter for regular bail before the charge sheet when the investigation is in progress and (iii) after filing of charge sheet and after completion of Page 11 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 21 20:32:21 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1443/2023 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2023 undefined investigation."
(3) In case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Another reported in 2005(3)GLH 601, wherein this Court has held as under:
"18. The principles of res judicata and such analogous principles although are not applicable in a criminal proceeding, still the Courts are bound by the doctrine of judicial discipline having regard to the hierarchical system prevailing in our country. The findings of a higher Court or a coordinate bench must receive serious consideration at the hands of the Court entertaining a bail applicable at a later stage when the same had been rejected earlier. In such an event, the Courts must give due weight to the grounds which weighed with the former or higher Court in rejecting the bail application. Ordinarily, the issues which had been canvassed earlier would not be permitted to be reagitated on the same grounds, as the same would lead to speculation and uncertainty in the administration of justice and may lead to forum hunting.
19. The decisions given by a superior forum, undoubtedly, is binding on the subordinate fora on the same issue even in bail matters unless of course, Page 12 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 21 20:32:21 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1443/2023 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2023 undefined there is a material change in the fact situation calling for a different view being taken. Therefore, even though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent application. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the argument of learned Counsel for the accused that in view the guaranty conferred on a person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is open to the aggrieved person to make successive bail applications even on a ground already rejected by Courts earlier including the Apex Court of the country."
(4) In case of State of Maharashtra v. Budhikota Subbarao reported in 1989 (0) GLHELSC 28635, wherein it is held as under:
"7. Once that application was rejected there was no question of granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overruling the earlier decision Page 13 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 21 20:32:21 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1443/2023 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2023 undefined without there being a change in the fact situation. And when we speak of change, we mean a substantial one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence. ...For the above reasons we are of the view that there was no justification for passing the impugned order in the absence of a substantial change in the fact- situation. That is what prompted Shetty, J. to describe the impugned order as 'a bit out of the ordinary'. Judicial restraint! demands that we say no more."
16. Even otherwise, the allegation against the applicant in the complaint is that he had abetted the crime of printing the fake counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 500/- and the said currency notes as well printing machine was found in the house of the applicant herein which is of serious nature which prescribes punishment for imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to ten years and shall also be Page 14 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 21 20:32:21 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1443/2023 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2023 undefined liable to fine if found guilty. In determining whether to grant bail, both seriousness of charge and severity of punishment has to be taken into consideration as well as such powers are to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and interest of the society in general. The offence committed by the applicant is against the interest of soceity at large, and therefore, considering the seriousness of offence, this is not a fit case where bail can be granted to the applicant, more particularly, when the applicant has not been able to point out any change in the circumstances from that of earlier rejection of the bail.
17. The trial is at an advance stage and Page 15 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 21 20:32:21 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1443/2023 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2023 undefined yet crucial witnesses are to be examined. Therefore, it would not be just and proper to consider the present bail application of the applicant.
18. In view of the above conspectus of law and considering the facts of the case in absence of change in circumstances, this second successive bail application is not entertained and is accordingly, dismissed.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) RAGHUNATH R NAIR Page 16 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 21 20:32:21 IST 2023