Pinakin Kuberbhai Patel vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

This case involves a criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail. The applicant, Pinakin Kuberbhai Patel, seeks bail in connection with FIR No. 11207024220006 of 2022, registered at Godhra Taluka Police Station, Panchmahal. The FIR pertains to offences under the Gujarat Prohibition Act and the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleges that liquor worth Rs. 65,40,000/- was seized from a vehicle based on secret information. The applicant was not named in the FIR but was implicated based on a co-accused's statement. The applicant's counsel stated that the applicant runs a grocery business under 'Hariom Enterprise', a proprietorship firm registered under GST since 2017, where his wife is the proprietor. The applicant claims he neither owns the vehicle nor was present at the scene of the offence.

Held

The Court allowed the application for regular bail. The High Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, specifically noting that the applicant was not the owner of the vehicle from which the liquor was seized and was not found at the place of the offence. Based on these observations, the Court found it to be a fit case to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. The applicant was ordered to be released on regular bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. Several conditions were imposed, including not misusing liberty, not acting prejudicially to the prosecution, surrendering his passport, not leaving India without permission, and not changing his residence without prior court approval. The authorities were also directed to adhere to their COVID-19 circulars before releasing the applicant, ensuring he was not required in any other offence.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the allegations of possessing a large quantity of liquor and the applicant's alleged involvement in its delivery. The petitioner argued that he was not named in the FIR, is not the owner of the vehicle from which the liquor was seized, and was not found at the place of the offence. He also highlighted that his wife's firm, 'Hariom Enterprise', is a GST-registered proprietorship dealing in grocery items, implying a legitimate business. The petitioner sought release on regular bail. The respondent, State of Gujarat, through the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, argued that a huge amount of liquor was seized from the vehicle, which was intended for delivery to the applicant. Therefore, the State contended that no discretion should be exercised in favour of the applicant.