Suhas Navnath Jadhav vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The applicant, Suhas Navnath Jadhav, filed an application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The application pertains to a case registered under Intelligence Bearing F.No.DGGI/INV/GST/1825/2025-Gr A. The charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant's advocate argued that considering the applicant's role and the nature of allegations, and the fact that the charge-sheet is filed, continued detention would serve no useful purpose. The State, through the Additional Public Prosecutor, objected to the bail, citing the nature of the offence and the applicant's role as revealed in the charge-sheet.

Held

The Court allowed the application for regular bail. It considered that the applicant is stated to be an employee of a co-accused and there were no substantial allegations against him beyond that. While acknowledging that the applicant might have performed acts not within the legal framework as part of his duties, the Court found that he did not appear to be part of the main conspiracy, even after the complaint was filed. The Court noted that the investigation was ongoing for the main accused and that the applicant's role seemed limited to that of an employee. The apprehension of absconding due to not being a resident of Gujarat was addressed by imposing suitable conditions. The Court relied on the principles laid down in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety, subject to several conditions including not misusing liberty, not acting against prosecution interests, surrendering passport, not leaving Gujarat without permission, providing current address, and marking presence at the police station periodically. The trial court was cautioned not to be influenced by the preliminary observations made for bail purposes.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, an employee of a co-accused, is entitled to regular bail, considering his role and the fact that a charge-sheet has been filed? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of bail jurisprudence and Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicant's role is limited, and he is an employee of a co-accused. - Since the charge-sheet has been filed, continued detention is unnecessary. - The applicant is willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the Court. - The applicant was not part of the main conspiracy. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The nature of the offence and the applicant's role, as emerging from the charge-sheet, warrant dismissal of the bail application. - The Court should not exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.