Gujarat High Court
Ravindrasingh @ Ravi Jairamsingh Pawar vs State Of Gujarat on 27 June, 2014
Author: Anant S.Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave
R/CR.MA/8892/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 8892 of 2014
================================================================
RAVINDRASINGH @ RAVI JAIRAMSINGH PAWAR....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
Mr. N.D. Nanavaty, Senior Advocate, with MR MOUSAM R YAGNIK,
ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
Mr. J.K. Shah, APP, for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date : 27/06/2014
ORAL ORDER
1 This fourth round successive bail application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with first information report registered at C.R.No.I252 of 2009 with Odhav police station, Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 328, 272, 273, 201, 109, 114, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 65(a)(b)(c)(d)(e), 66(1)(b), 671A, 68, 72, 75, 81, 83 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.
2 Earlier, by a reasoned order dated 10.2.2012 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.1281 of 2012, this Court rejected the third round successive bail application filed by the applicant, which reads as under:
"1 This successive application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with first information Page 1 of 7 R/CR.MA/8892/2014 ORDER report registered at C.R.No.I252 of 2009 with Odhav police station, Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 328, 272, 273, 201, 109, 114, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 65(a)(b)(c)(d)(e), 66(1)(b), 671A, 68, 72, 75, 81, 83 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.
2 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this bail application is preferred by the applicant on the change of circumstance, namely, the Apex Court, vide order dated 9.12.2011 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.8401 of 2011, permitted the applicant to move a fresh application for bail pointing out the order granted to a coaccused particularly who is branded as 'seller' of the same spurious country liquor. It is further submitted that the coaccused persons have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 29.9.2011 and 18.10.2011 passed in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 12385/201, 14355/2011 and 14238/2011. Therefore, on the ground of parity, this application for bail may be considered by this Court.
3 The learned Special Public Prosecutor has opposed grant of bail looking to the nature and gravity of offence.
4 Earlier, this Court [Coram: H.B. Antani, J. (as His Lordship then was)], vide order dated 6.4.2010 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.13319 of 2009 filed by the applicant, refused bail to the applicant by assigning following reasons:
"I have considered the statements of witnesses referred to by learned advocates of both the sides, more particularly, statements of Naresh Dattatrey Gajjar and Balvantbhai Vithalbhai Vaghela. Muddamal which was recovered was sent to Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory for the purpose of analysis, and the report given by the FSL is also taken into consideration by me.Page 2 of 7
R/CR.MA/8892/2014 ORDER Detailed analysis given by the Scientific Officer is also produced for my perusal which shows that methanol and ethanol were found in the samples which were sent to FSL. Methanol and ethanol are poisonous substances and if it is added to the liquor, then, it is likely to have adverse effect on the body of the person who consumes it. The applicant is involved in very serious offences. Considering the gravity and nature of the offence in which the applicant is involved, the same, in my view, would have a very serious effect on the social fabric of the Society. Manufacturing and supplying of liquor is, as such, prohibited in the State of Gujarat. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, even using quality raw material, its production and supply are an illegal activities in the State. In the present case, the applicant has supplied liquor manufactured illegally and that too, by using poisonous substance of methanol which everyone knows that if anyone consumes it, he is likely to have a very adverse effect on the body and can cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The nature of accusation against the accused is elaborated in the FIR and so far as the severity of offence is concerned, offence under Sec.302 of IPC is punishable with death or imprisonment for life; offence under Sec.307 is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and if hurt is caused to any person, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for life; offence under Section 328 is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years. The applicant is also involved in offences punishable under the Bombay Prohibition Act. Thus, considering the nature of the offence in which the applicant is involved and the manner in which the liquor was distributed to large number of customers having full knowledge that it contains Page 3 of 7 R/CR.MA/8892/2014 ORDER methanol, in my view, it requires to be viewed seriously, as in all, 149 lives have been lost because of consumption of spurious liquor. The Court has also to consider the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of presence of accused not being secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the evidence of the witnesses being tampered with and larger interest of public or State and other similar factors which are relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the catena of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex court, detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of merits of the case is to be avoided by the Court while passing orders on bail applications. Yet the Court has to be satisfied as to whether there is prima facie case against the applicant. Thus, considering the offence in which the applicant is involved, seriousness or gravity of offence, manner in which the offence is committed by the applicant, impact on the Society as a whole and various provisions of offences punishable under sections 302, 328, 114, 272, 273, 109, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 65(a)(b)(c), (d) and (e), 66(1)(b), 67 (1) (c), 68, 72, 75, 81 and 83 of the Bombay Prohibition Act which are invoked in the present case, I am of the considered view that no discretionary relief is required to be granted to the applicant as provided under Sec.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
5 It is not in dispute that, against the above order, Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.4207 of 2010 preferred by the applicant came to be dismissed by the Apex Court as withdrawn by order dated 19.7.2010.
Page 4 of 7R/CR.MA/8892/2014 ORDER 6 In the second round of litigation also, the trial court rejected
the bail application vide order dated 7.2.2011 and this Court also rejected vide order dated 4.8.2011. In appeal, the Apex Court did not interfere with the order of this Court, but granted liberty.
7 The submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that liberty is reserved by the Apex Court to consider the case of the applicant for bail on the ground that the seller of methanol used for manufacturing illicit liquor is enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, would not persuade this Court to exercise discretionary power, when the facts and circumstances of the case would reveal that, because of manufacture, sale, transportation and supply of methanol which was used for manufacturing illicit liquor, distribution and consumption of which ultimately resulted into more than 148 death in the City of Ahmedabd and particularly when the role of the applicant in commission of crime, primafacie, surfaces on record and the trial is to commence shortly, I am inclined to concur with the reasons recorded by this Court [Coram: H.B. Antani, J. (as His Lordship then was)], vide order dated 6.4.2010 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.13319 of 2009 filed by the applicant, rather than considering the reasons recorded by Coordinate Bench while enlarging the coaccused branded as 'seller' of methanol, a poisonous and deadly chemical which was used for manufacturing illicit liquor. No parity can be granted to the applicant considering the gravity of the crime and involvement of the applicant in a serious offence punishable under Section 302,etc. of the Indian Penal Code. This third round successive bail application is rejected summarily."
Page 5 of 7R/CR.MA/8892/2014 ORDER 3 Against the order dated 10.2.2012 passed by this Court in
Criminal Misc. Application No.1281 of 2012, the applicant filed Criminal Appeal No.334 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (Cri.) No.3334 of 2012 before the Apex Court, wherein, vide order dated 22.2.2013, in paragraphs 27 and 28, it held by the Apex Court, while dismissing bail application of the applicant and cancelling the bail granted to one Jayesh Hiralal Thakkar (accused No.2) by this Court vide order dated 29.9.2011 in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 12384 and 12385 of 2011, as under:
"27. Under these circumstances, considering the nature of the offence and the manner in which A2 supplied those poisonous chemicals despite having full knowledge about its consequences, we are satisfied that the respondent (A2) does not deserve liberty of remaining on bail. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 29.9.2011 passed by the High Court in Criminal Misc. ApplicationNos. 12384 and 12385 of 2011 is set aside. The respondent (A2) is directed to surrender before the Court concerned within a period of two weeks fromtoday, failing which, necessary steps be taken for his arrest in order to put in in jail.
28. It is unfortunate to note that in a State like Gujarat, which strictly prohibts the use of alcohol in any formwhatsoever, the accused caused death and injuries to several persons by supplying spurious countrymade liquor. Taking a serious view of the matter, the complexity of the crime, the role played by accused persons as wellas the number of casualties, we are of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of bail."
4 Mr. N.D. Nanavaty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant, submits that the Apex Court has granted liberty, in paragraph 29 of the aforesaid order, to file fresh application for bail if the trial Page 6 of 7 R/CR.MA/8892/2014 ORDER continues beyond one year from 22.2.2013 and, accordingly, since the trial is not over by now, the applicant has preferred this application for bail. That, the applicant is in jail for the last five years and, looking to the voluminous record, the trial will take further four to five years to complete and, on that ground, keeping the applicant in jail as an undertrial prisoner, the fundamental right of the applicantaccused is truncated. It is further submitted that coaccused having substantially similar role came to be enlarged. In view of the above, even on the ground of parity and delay in completing the trial, this Court may be pleased to exercise the discretionary power to enlarge the applicant on bail by imposing suitable conditions.
5 Heard the learned APP who opposed grant of bail looking to the nature and gravity of offence.
6 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I am not inclined to consider the case of the applicant for bail more particularly when there is no change in facts, circumstances or law and, for the same reasons stated in the earlier order dated 10.2.2012 passed by this Court, this fourth round successive bail application is rejected.
(ANANT S.DAVE, J.) SWAMY Page 7 of 7