Umar Yusuf Chiniwala Through Shabana Umar Chiniwala vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that the application for temporary bail required consideration. It was reasoned that the prisoner had previously been released on temporary bail under police surveillance and had surrendered in time. Considering these aspects, the Court found it appropriate to grant temporary bail. The under-trial prisoner was ordered to be released on temporary bail for a period of three days under police surveillance, at the cost of the applicant. This release was subject to the execution of a personal bond of ₹10,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned Authority, commencing from the date of his actual release.

Facts

This case involves a criminal miscellaneous application filed by Shabana Umar Chiniwala, wife of Umar Yusuf Chiniwala, who is an under-trial prisoner. The application sought temporary bail for the prisoner to arrange for the outstanding GST amount. A notice dated March 14, 2018, issued by the Enforcement Division, Nanpura, Surat, was produced in support of the application. The record also indicated that the under-trial prisoner had previously been released on temporary bail and had surrendered on time. The Court considered these facts, along with the prisoner's past release on temporary bail under police surveillance.

Key Issues

1. Whether the under-trial prisoner, Umar Yusuf Chiniwala, should be released on temporary bail to make arrangements for the outstanding GST amount, considering his previous timely surrender after temporary bail. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, through party-in-person Shabana Umar Chiniwala, argued for the release of her husband on temporary bail to facilitate the payment of outstanding GST dues. She relied on a notice dated March 14, 2018, issued by the Enforcement Division, Surat, and highlighted the prisoner's past compliance with temporary bail conditions. Revenue/State's Contention: Learned APP waived service of notice on behalf of the respondent-State of Gujarat. Mr. Kartik Pandya waived service of notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondents.