As The Appellant Is In Jail For Over 2½ Years. Considering, It Is The First Time, The Accused Of Such Nature Of Crimes, Supreme Court Grants Bail To The Appellant In The Second Appeal.

Case title:

Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi vs State Of Gujarat 

Date of Order:

4th May, 2023

Bench:

Hon’ble Justice Ajay Rastogi And Hon’ble Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Parties:

Petitioner- Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi

Respondent- State Of Gujarat

SUBJECT

The case referred to as Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 10051/2022 has been resolved according to the official decision that has been made and documented. Additionally, any pending requests related to this case have also been addressed and settled. 

Regarding the appeal in Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 331/2023, it has been granted based on the official decision that has been made and documented. The person who appealed should be allowed to post bail and be released under the conditions that the Trial Court deems appropriate.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

Section 437 of the CrPC. 

According to the above section, any person who is arrested or detained in a non-bailable offence may be released on bail, provided certain conditions are fulfilled.

OVERVIEW

• The Appellant, along with others, has been accused of committing various crimes under different sections of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
• Specifically, the Appellant is accused of being involved in an organised crime syndicate with the intention of extorting money and land-grabbing. In one instance, the Appellant allegedly threatened a victim and witnesses in connection to a land deal, demanding a large sum of money. 
• The main accused, Jaysukh @ Jayesh Muljibhai Ranpara (Patel), is also accused of threatening the victim. The Appellant is accused of being complicit in this intimidation and was involved in collecting extorted funds in the city. It is alleged that the Appellant also provided information to assist the crime syndicate's activities, thereby abetting the gang's actions. 
• The Appellant is also accused of owning properties that were obtained through organized crimes. 
• The allegations against the Appellant stem from FIR Cr No.I-11202008202186, which was registered with the "A" Division Police Station, Jamnagar in the State of Gujarat.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the appellant be granted bail under Section 437 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT

• The Appellant's lawyer argued that there are eight other First Information Reports (FIRs) in which he has been charged, seven of which are from before 2015, and one from 2019. 
• The sections cited in the current FIR do not indicate his involvement in organized crime, and he has been made an accused in the present case without any basis. 
• The lawyer further stated that the allegation in the FIR that the Appellant arranged a telephonic conversation between the accused no.1, the complainant, and another person, and then hatched a conspiracy to fire bullets at the complainant's house, is false. 
• The lawyer cited a relevant judgment to argue that the offense of organized crime requires at least one incident of continuation apart from continuing unlawful activity evidenced by more than one chargesheet in the preceding ten years. The Appellant's last case was registered on 14.11.2019, before the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act (GCTOC Act) came into force on 01.12.2019. 
• The lawyer further argued that out of the sixteen accused in the case, four are absconding, and twelve are charge-sheeted, out of which six are already out on bail. Therefore, the lawyer argued that the Appellant should also be granted bail on the grounds of parity.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT

• The State's representative, Mr. S V Raju, argued that the accused, who is before the court, was well-acquainted with accused no.1 Jaysukh @ Jayesh Muljibhai Ranpara (Patel). Mr. Raju contended that the Appellant and accused no.1 became close during the 2015 Municipal Election and were both accused in the Patel Reservation Movement riots. 
• In addition to the current case, it was argued that eight other cases have been registered against the Appellant, and he is attempting to pressure authorities by spreading false information about the cancellation of land deals relating to survey No.961. When his efforts failed, witnesses were allegedly threatened and intimidated to cancel the land deal(s). 
• Mr. Raju also alleged that the Appellant facilitated the first meeting on 01.11.2019 between accused no.1 and PWs No. 5 and 6, and when the extortion money was not paid, another meeting was conducted in which Rs. 2,19,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores and Nineteen Lakhs) was paid to the members of the organised crime syndicate. 
• Furthermore, after the Appellant's arrest on 20.02.2022, his son is accused of facilitating a call between PW 5 and accused no.1 and extorting Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs). 
• Mr. Raju stated that the court may only consider the bail application after the examination of protected witnesses, whose statements directly prove the Appellant's involvement in the crime(s). 
• Additionally, it was pointed out that out of the six co-accused released on bail, five are out on default bail, and only one accused had secured regular bail.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS

• The Court has reviewed the arguments presented by both sides but has decided that it is not necessary to discuss the legal aspects related to the application of the GCTOC Act in the current appeal. The appeal (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1390 OF 2023 ( @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.10051 OF 2022) has been filed only for the purpose of seeking bail during the trial. Still, considering the alleged role of the accused, the Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in his favor.
• The Court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellant at the present juncture. However, the Court has taken note of the stand taken by the State.
• Therefore, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1391 OF 2023 ( @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.331 OF 2023)- The court held that to show respect for the law in these cases, the Supreme Court has decided not to provide a detailed opinion on the merits. 
• After carefully considering the matter, the Court has determined that the appellant, who has been in jail for over two and a half years, has made a prima facie case for bail. 
• The fact that there was only one prior case, which was quashed by the High Court, also works in the appellant's favor. 
• Therefore, the Court has ordered the appellant to be released on bail with certain conditions to protect the state's interests, such as reporting to the Investigating Officer every Monday between 10AM to 1PM and surrendering the passport if it hasn't already been surrendered. If the appellant violates any of the conditions, the respondent can move for cancellation of the bail. The appeal has been allowed, and any pending applications are closed.
• Supreme Court also cited Vilas Pandurang Pawar v State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 795 while giving judgment.

CONCLUSION

• In conclusion, the Supreme Court considered various factors, including the law and the facts of the case, and granted bail to the appellant. The Court found that the appellant had made out a prima facie case for bail and that his previous criminal record was not substantial enough to justify continued detention. 
• The Court imposed certain conditions on the appellant's release, including reporting to the investigating officer and surrendering his passport, to protect the state's interests. Finally, the Court allowed the appeal and closed any pending applications in this regard.