Gujarat High Court
Urvishbhai Ratilal Thakkar vs State Of Gujarat on 27 July, 2021
Author: S.H.Vora
Bench: S.H.Vora
R/CR.MA/4207/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 4207 of 2021
==========================================================
URVISHBHAI RATILAL THAKKAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MANAN MEHTA APP(2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H.VORA
Date : 27/07/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. This is second successive bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection with F.I.R. registered at C.R. No.II-3084 of 2016 with Anklav Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 15(c), 22(c) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act.
2. In the first successive bail application being CR.MA No.18276 of 2018, the Court has passed the following order on 20/06/2018:
"1. Bail is sought in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 15(c), 22(c) and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short "the Act") registered with Anklav Police Station under II-C.R. No.3084 of 2016 wherein the applicant has been arrested on 30.07.2016. The applicant unsuccessfully preferred two bail applications; one before the court of Sessions which was rejected and the other with this Court which came to be withdrawn on 23.11.2017.
2. In the light of the settled legal position that the court would not normally entertain the successive bail application in absence of the change in circumstance, the case for bail on the ground is not made out. Only change in circumstance pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner is his retirement from the unregistered partnership firm. As such the said ground is not available to the Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 03:38:38 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/4207/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2021 petitioner as changed circumstance to reiterate the bail inasmuchas the said documents relate to the year 2012 and were available with him at the time of previous two bail applications. That apart, the retirement does not have any bearing on the allegation against the petitioner of his possessing the prohibited article - poppy straw, in excess than authorized under the license. The averments in the complaint would indicate that the keys of the shop wherefrom such quantity was found was with the petitioner and he opened the shop prima facie indicating the actual unlawful possession of the contraband article. If the case pleaded is proved, it would be certainly a serious case capable of fetching higher punishment for the possession of the commercial quantity of the prohibited article.
3. For the foregoing reasons, the application fails and is rejected. Rule is discharged."
3. Learned Advocate for the applicant Mr.Raval seeks bail on the premises that trial is yet not concluded, as also despite the fact that the applicant is behind bars since last five years and only one prosecution witness is examined at Exhibit-38 and according to the said witness, the applicant has not produced the key and therefore, he made a request to enlarge the applicant on bail.
4. Having considered the rival submissions and looking to the allegations made in the FIR and considering the observations made in the first successive bail application on 26/10/2018, it appears that in FIR there is an allegation that the present applicant produced the key of the shop where-from the contraband NDPS substance was seized and there is an allegation that the petitioner opened the shop prima-facie indicating the actual possession of the contraband article. The total seized contraband recovered is 2587 Kg of Posh Doda and if the case as alleged is proved, the punishment for the possession of the commercial quantity may be on higher side, then what is submitted by the learned Advocate for the applicant that the alleged offence can fetch the punishment of Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 03:38:38 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/4207/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2021 ten years cannot be accepted.
6. So far as the reliance placed upon deposition of one of the prosecution witness viz., Mr.Vipulbhai Kiritbhai Barot, who is Panch witness, it is not desirable and proper to read and rely upon the evidence of only this witness while considering the bail application since many other material and relevant witnesses are yet to be examined by the trial Court in due course of time. The Court does not find any special or exceptional circumstances to grant bail to the applicant even on the ground of parity since the order in favour of co-accused Mr.Hemantbhai Rameshbhai was very-much there when the co-ordinate Bench was considering the bail application of the present applicant on 26/10/2018.
7. In view of such position, no case is made out to consider the 2nd successive bail application. Accordingly, the present application stands rejected. However, the learned trial Judge is directed to examine the remaining prosecution witnesses as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months from the date of the receipt of the writ of this order.
(S.H.VORA, J) sompura Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 03:38:38 IST 2022