Case title:
Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi Vs. the State of Gujarat
Date of Order:
4 May 2023
Bench:
Hon. Ajay Rastogi and Hon. Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ
Parties:
Appellant- Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi
Respondents- State of Gujarat
SUBJECT
Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law, nor shall any person be denied equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India". Even the accused in our country have certain rights. These rights include the right to a fair trial, to get bail, to hire a lawyer, to avail of free legal aid, etc. A bail application is made by the accused or his representative, requesting the court to release him from custody during the trial pendency.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015
- Section 3(1)
- Section 3(2)
- Section 3(3)
- Section 3(4)
- Section 3(5)
- Section 4
Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 384
- Section 385
- Section 386
- Section 387
- Section 506(1)
- Section 506(2)
- Section 507
- Section 120
- Section 120B
OVERVIEW
- The appellants, in this case, were accused under Sections 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), and 3(5) and 4 of the GCTOC Act read along with Sections 384, 385, 386, 387, 506(1), 506(2), 507, 201, and 120B of the IPC.
- As given in the FIR registered with the Division Police Station, Jamnagar, the appellant (accused no.4) was involved in the intimidation and threatening of the victim on behalf of the First Accused.
- Accused No.1 was involved in an organized crime syndicate where they threatened people to extort money and grab their land.
- There were a total of 59 registered cases existing against the First Accused.
- The appellant aided the crime by threatening the victim to cancel a land deal and pay Rs.1,00,00,000/- to the appellant.
- It was found that the appellant was directly involved in the collection of the extorted money and passing off information to the gang for their activities.
- The appellant also owned several properties that he acquired through funds obtained from organized crime.
- The appellant applied for bail before the High Court of Gujarat in Ahmedabad. However, his plea was dismissed.
- Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India through a Special Leave Petition.
ISSUE RAISED
- Whether an appeal for bail can be granted against the Accused No.4 charged with punishable offenses under the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The counsel representing the appellant contended that the sections under which the FIR was filed do not convey his participation in criminal activities. Therefore the accusations in the present case have been made without factual basis.
- The counsel stated that as per the report, through a telephonic call, the appellant and accused no.1 hired six men to get to the complainant’s house and fire bullets. This allegation was argued to be false.
- The day after the FIR was lodged, four of the complainants stated that the appellant had not called Accused No. 1.
- It was submitted before the court that the appellant was charged in eight other FIR, out of which seven dates back to 2015 and one is from the year 2019.
- Citing the case, State of Maharashtra v Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane [(2015) 14 SCC 272], the counsel further submitted that the last case against appellant was registered in 2019 before the enactment of the GCTOC Act.
- The counsel pointed out that out of the 16 accused, four have absconded and the other six are on bail. Hence, even on the grounds of parity, the appellant should be granted bail.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The Additional Solicitor General of India, Mr. S V Raju represented the State of Gujarat.
- The learned counsel contended that the appellant and accused were well-acquainted and got close during the 2015 municipal election, where the appellant even participated in riots for the First Accused.
- It was submitted that the appellant organized several meetings between the first accused and the PWs. Additionally, after the arrest of the appellant, the son of the appellant had organized calls between PW 5 and accused no.1 and was also involved in the extortion of Rs. 25,00,000/-
- The counsel urged the court to hear the statements of the protection witnesses, before considering the grant of bail.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The apex court rejected the bail request of the accused.
- The bench consisting of the Hon. Ajay Rastogi and the Hon. Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ stated that it would be unnecessary to delve into the legal aspects of the case as it just involves the question of bail grant during the trial pendency.
- The court ruled that the appellant's consistent participation in crime is evident from all the other cases lodged against him. It was held that without any prima facie material/ cases against the appellant’s criminal activities, the court could have considered the bail application.
- It was also held that the court lacked discretion to decide in the appellant's favor. It relied on the case Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor [(1978) 1 SCC 240] in which the term “judicial discretion” was defined. Judicial discretion is when the judge is free to exercise a discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by the system, and subordinated to “the primordial necessity of order in social life”.
- The court cited the case of Vilas Pandurang Pawar v State of Maharashtra [(2012) 8 SCC 795] in which it was held that when a bail application is considered, critical analysis of the evidence is restricted. The courts do not have to incorporate detailed views of the case's merits.
- Subsequently, the court granted the ASG 6 months to record the statements of the protection witnesses.
- The court gave the appellant the liberty of renewing his bail application after six months.
CONCLUSION
A bail plea can be denied for a variety of reasons. One such ground for rejection is when the court is prima facie satisfied with the charges against the accused. In the present case, the apparent evidence of the appellant’s criminal involvement was reason enough for the court to refuse bail. Justice is the end goal of the law. When the facts and circumstances of a case are not favorable to the accused, granting them bail would be a denial of justice
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
