Gujarat High Court
Ranjeet vs State on 26 February, 2010
Author: H.B.Antani
Bench: H.B.Antani
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/12918/2009 11/ 11 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 12918 of 2009
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
RANJEET
SINGH RAM SINGH DABHI & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
SV
RAJU ASSOCIATES for
Applicants
MR TUSHAR MEHTA, SPL. AAG AND MR JM PANCHAL, SPL.PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for
Opponent-State
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
:26/02/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
This is an application preferred by the applicants under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [ Code for short], seeking regular bail in connection with I-CR No. 161 of 2009 registered with Kagdapith police station, Ahmedabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 304, 328, 120-B and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [ IPC for short] as well as under Sections 65[a][b][c][d][e][f], 66[1], 67[1][A][B], 68, 72, 75, 81 and 83 of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 [ Prohibition Act for short].
2. Mr. S.V.Raju, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the applicants submitted that FIR was filed by one Premjibhai Jethabhai Dabhi against the accused Harish and Pradeep on 7.7.09. It is alleged in the FIR that complainant was acquainted with Harishbhai and Pradeep Harishbhai and on the evening of 5.7.09 original accused no.2 was also present at that time. Complainant asked accused no.1 for liquor and accused no.1 provided him two glasses of liquor. At that time, other friends of accused no.1 were also present there and all of them had a party together and thereafter the complainant left for his house. It is alleged in the FIR that the complainant again went to the house of accused nos. 1 and 2 and asked for more liquor. Accused no.1 gave liquor to the complainant from the same bottle from which the complainant had taken liquor on previous night. Charge-sheet was filed on 7.9.2009, being Charge-sheet No. 110 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 307, 328, 272, 273, 201,217, 221, 109 and 114 of IPC and Sections 65[a][b][c][d][e][f], 66[1][b], 67[1][A] 68,72,75,81 and 83 of the Prohibition Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, all the accused as shown in Column nos. 1 and 2 in the charge-sheet, in connivance with each other for their personal gain prepared spurious liquor containing poisonous methyl alcohol and sold and distributed the same in various parts of Ahmedabad City. It is submitted that the applicants are not named in the FIR and they are completely innocent. They have no criminal antecedents except being involved in the present case. Learned advocate submitted that if FIR as well as charge-sheet papers are perused, then, it does not disclose any offence punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 307, 328, 272, 273, 201, 217, 221, 109 and 114 of IPC. Thus, for the offence punishable under Sections 65[a][b][c][d][e], 66[1][b], 67-1A, 68, 72, 75, 81 and 83 of the Prohibition Act, the applicants are required to be enlarged on regular bail. The applicants are working in Police Department and they have performed their duties with honesty and hard work. It is submitted that applicant no.1 has registered 19 cases of prohibition, whereas applicant no.2 has booked 46 cases of prohibition till now against the persons who are accused and are involved in anti-social activities in connection with the aforesaid offences. Learned advocate, placing reliance on the statements of witnesses, submitted that all the statements were recorded after the arrest of the present applicants with a view to create evidence against them. Learned advocate, placing reliance on the statements of witnesses, more particularly, Bhanvarlal Gopalji Raval dated 3.8.09 and 4.8.09, submitted that on perusal of the statements, it becomes clear that there is lot of improvement in the statement dated 4.8.09 of Bhanvarlal Gopalji. Statement of Chandarbhai Jamirmal Sindhi was recorded on 3.8.09 and again on 4.8.09. Again there is lot of improvement in the statement dated 4.8.09 of Chandarbhai Jamirmal. Statement of Govindbhai Nanalal Koshti was recorded on 3.8.09 and again on 4.8.09, but subsequent statement dated 4.8.09 makes it abundantly clear that there was lot of improvement in the said statement of Govindbhai Koshti. Even the affidavit which is filed by Mr. M.D. Chaudhari, Police Inspector, does not inspire necessary confidence. He has filed affidavit with a view to misguide the Court. The applicants are not involved in manufacturing and distributing spurious liquor as alleged in the FIR. Learned advocate submitted that while considering grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code, nature of offence against the applicant is required to be taken into account. There is nothing on record of the case to indicate involvement of the applicants in the alleged commission of offence. There is nothing on record to suggest that both the applicants are involved in the commission of offence under Section 302 of IPC. Thus,learned advocate submitted that considering the role attributed to the applicants as reflected in the FIR, which is produced at page 6 of the compilation, both the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail as prayed for in the application.
4. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General appearing with Mr. J.M. Panchal, Special Public Prosecutor, representing the opponent State, submitted that for the purpose of facilitating the work of the Court, detailed Chart is prepared. Considering the role of the present applicants who were working hand in glove with the other accused and the fact that they have committed heinous crime punishable under Sections 120-B, 302,307, 328, 272, 273, 201, 217, 221, 109 and 114 of IPC as well as under Sections 65[a][b][c][d][e][f], 66[1][b], 67[1][A], 68, 72, 75, 81 and 83 of the Prohibition Act, no discretionary relief be granted to the applicants.
Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that on perusal of statements of witnesses given by Bhanvarlal Gopalji Raval on 3.8.09 and on 4.8.09, Chandarbhai Jamirmal Sindhi on 3.8.09 and 4.8.09, Govindbhai Nanalal Koshti on 3.8.09 and 4.8.09 as well as panchnama which is produced along with case papers and telephone and mobile phones which were used by the applicants and the talk that the applicants had with other accused, makes it clear that the present applicants are involved in serious offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 302,307, 328, 272, 273, 201, 217, 221, 109 and 114 of IPC as well as under Sections 65[a][b][c][d][e][f], 66[1][b], 67[1][A], 68, 72, 75, 81 and 83 of the Prohibition Act. Learned Additional Advocate General has also placed reliance on the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory in support of the submission that the liquor was found to contain methanol which is hazardous to the health of a person who consumes it. Thus, considering the role attributed to the applicants and the manner in which the offence is committed by them in tandem with other accused and seriousness as well as gravity of offence in which the applicants are involved in the offence, no discretionary relief be granted to the applicants as in all, 149 persons have lost their lives and so many families have lost their bread winner in the family.
Activities in which the applicants are involved would also have a very adverse or deleterious effect on the Society as a whole and therefore, involvement of the applicants in the commission of offence requires to be viewed very seriously and therefore, the application is meritless and deserves to be dismissed.
6. I have heard the submissions canvassed by the learned Sr. Advocate Mr. S.V. Raju for the applicants, and Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Addl. Advocate General as well as Mr. J.M. Panchal, learned Special Public Prosecutor, both appearing for the opponent State, at length and in great detail. I have carefully taken into consideration the averments made in the application as well as role of the applicants which is reflected in the FIR. The applicants are charged for the offence punishable under Sections Sections 120B, 302, 307, 328, 272, 273, 201,217, 221, 109 and 114 of IPC as well as Sections 65[a][b][c][d][e][f], 66[1][b], 67[1][A] 68,72,75,81 and 83 of the Prohibition Act. FIR being CR No. 161 of 2009 has been filed by one Premjibhai Jethabhai Dabhi against Harishbhai and Pradipbhai Harishbhai on 7.7.09. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant was having acquaintance with Harish and Pradip Harishbhai and liquor was provided to the complainant by the accused and even on the next day, liquor was provided to the complainant. Those who consumed the liquor were not feeling well and subsequently admitted to the hospital. Large number of persons after, consuming liquor also died and therefore, complaint was lodged against the accused.
7. I have considered the statements of witnesses referred to by learned advocates of both the sides, more particularly, statements of Bhanvarlal Gopalji Raval dated 3.8.09 and 4.8.09, Chandarbhai Jamirmal Sindhi dated 3.8.09 and 4.8.09 and Govindbhai Nanalal Koshti dated 3.8.09 and 4.8.09 as well as panchnama of the place where raid was carried out in presence of panch witnesses. Conversation that the accused had with different persons in connection with liquor and the extract thereof which is produced for my perusal are also considered by me. Muddamal which was recovered was sent to Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory for the purpose of analysis and report given by the FSL is also taken into consideration by me. Detailed analysis given by the Scientific Officer is also produced for my perusal which shows that methanol was found in the samples which were sent to FSL. Methanol is a poisonous substance 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.
8. The applicants are involved in very serious offences. Considering the gravity and nature of the offence in which the applicants are 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 is an illegal activity in the State. In the present case, liquor is 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. 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 applicants are also involved in ten offences punishable under the Bombay Prohibition Act. Thus, considering the nature of the offence in which the applicants are involved and the manner in which the liquor was distributed to large number of customers having full knowledge that it contains 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 applicants. Thus, considering the offence in which the applicants are involved, seriousness or gravity of offence, manner in which the offence is committed by the applicants, impact on the Society as a whole and various provisions of Sections 120B, 302, 307, 328, 272, 273, 201,217, 221, 109 and 114 of IPC and Sections 65[a][b][c][d][e][f], 66[1][b], 67[1][A] 68,72,75,81 and 83 of the 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 applicants as provided under Sec.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
9. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the application preferred by the applicants and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[H.B. ANTANI, J.] pirzada/-
Top