ATULBHAI VITHALBHAI BHANDERI versus STATE OF GUJARAT
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 239, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
239
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 239
239
ATULBHAI VITHALBHAI BHANDERI
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT
(Criminal Appeal No. 1390 of 2023)
MAY 04, 2023
[AJAY RASTOGI AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
Bail : Grant of – Appellant involved in intimidating and
threatening the victim in connivance with the main accused no.1
running an organised crime syndicate for extorting money and land-
grabbing by threatening people – 59 cases registered against the
accused no.1 – FIR against appellant and others for offence
punishable under the 2015 Act and the Penal Code – Bail application
by the appellant during pendency of the trial – Dismissed by the
High Court – On appeal, held: Discretion must be exercised
judiciously – Keeping in view the appellant’s alleged role, no
inclination to exercise discretion in his favour – Out of the twelve
charge-sheeted accused, six co-accused have not been granted bail,
five have availed the benefit of default bail and only one is on
regular bail, thus, interference not called for – Allegations levelled
and the statements of the witnesses have been perused carefully –
In view thereof, the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant is
rejected – However, as submitted by the State, upon the completion
of recording of statements of the protected witnesses, the appellant
is at liberty to renew his plea for bail – Gujarat Control of Terrorism
and Organised Crime Act, 2015 – ss. 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) and 3(5)
and 4 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 384, 385, 386, 387, 506(1),
506(2),
507, 201, 120B.
Vilas Pandurang Pawar v State of Maharashtra, (2012)
8 SCC 795 : [2012] 8 SCR 270 – relied on.
State of Gujarat v Sandip Omprakash Gupta, 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1727; State of Maharashtra v Shiva alias
Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane, (2015) 14 SCC 272 : [2015]
9 SCR 211; Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor,
(1978) 1 SCC 240 : [1978] 2 SCR 371; Niranjan Singh
v Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, (1980) 2 SCC 559 :
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
240
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
[1980] 3 SCR 15; Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v Vishanbhai
Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) (2021) 6 SCC 230 – referred
to.
Case Law Reference
[2015] 9 SCR 211
referred to
Para 5
[1978] 2 SCR 371
referred to
Para 9
[1980] 3 SCR 15
referred to
Para 10
[2012] 8 SCR 270
relied on
Para 11
(2021) 6 SCC 230
referred to
Para 12
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1390 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.09.2022 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in CRLMA No. 22475 of 2021.
Maninder Singh, Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, Sr. Advs., E. C.
Agrawala, Sunil Murarka, Ankur Saigal, Gunnam Venkantewara Rao,
Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, Ms. Anwesha Padhi, Pradhuman Gohil, Mrs. Taruna
Singh Gohil, Ms. Ranu Purohit, Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Ms. Nidhi Mittal,
Advs. for the Appellant.
S. V. Raju, ASG, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Praveen
Kumar Singh, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present Appeal is directed against the Final Judgment and
Order dated 07.09.2022 (hereinafter re- ferred to as the “Impugned
Judgment”) passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
(hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No. 22475 of 2021, by which the prayer for release of the
Appellant on bail has been dismissed.
THE FACTUAL PRISM:
3. The Appellant, along with others, is accused in FIR Cr No.I-
11202008202186 of
2020 registered with the “A” Division Police Station,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
241
Jamnagar in the State of Gujarat for offences punishable under Sections
3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) and 3(5) and 4 of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism
and Organised Crime Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the “GCTOC
Act”) read with Sections 384, 385, 386, 387, 506(1), 506(2), 507, 201,
120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the
“IPC”). The Appellant is arrayed as accused No.4 in the said FIR and is
said to be involved in intimidating and threatening the victim in connivance
with the main accused no.1 Jaysukh @ Jayesh Muljibhai Ranpara (Patel),
running an organised crime syndicate for the purpose, with the intention
to extort money and in land-grabbing by threatening people at large. As
per the FIR details, 59 cases are registered against the said accused
no.1. It is alleged that the Appellant threatened the victim and concerned
witnesses to cancel the land deal pertaining to survey No.961 or to pay
a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore) to the Appellant, which
they refused. The allegation against the accused no.1 is of threatening
the victim. The role of the appellant is that he was involved in intimidating
and threatening the victim on behalf of the accused no.1 for ensuring the
victim’s compliance with the extortion demands. It is alleged that the
appellant owns properties derived from funds of organised crimes. Further,
it is alleged that from the enquiry, it is revealed that the Appellant was
directly involved in
collecting the sum(s) extorted from the victim in the
city, and that he has also been found to be involved in passing on
information which is likely to assist the crime syndicate in its activities,
thereby abetting the actions of the gang.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANT:
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that there are
eight other First Information Reports in which he has been charge-
sheeted, out of the which seven are prior to the year 2015 and one is of
the year 2019. It was contended that the section(s), under which the
FIR in question has been lodged, do not indicate his involvement in any
organised crime. And thus, without any basis, he has been made an
accused in the present case.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the allegations
made in the FIR, the Appellant had arranged a telephonic talk between
the accused no.1, the complainant as well as one Bhagwanjibhai
Kanjariya; that upon the complainant neither cancelling the deed of the
plot nor paying the purported extortion amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees
One Crore), the Appellant along with the accused no.1 hatched a
ATULBHAI VITHALBHAI BHANDERI v. STATE OF GUJARAT
[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
242
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
conspiracy and sent six persons to the residence of the complainant and
they fired three rounds of bullets. This, according to learned counsel, is
false. As per the submission, the four persons who gave the complaint
before the police, on the very next day of the FIR being lodged, had
stated that the Appellant did not make any telephonic call to the accused
no.1. Learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the Judgment
in State of Gujarat v Sandip Omprakash Gupta, 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 1727 dated 15.12.2022, the relevant portions being Paragraphs No.
49, 56 and 57, which has reiterated the dictum laid down by this Court in
State of Maharashtra v Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane, (2015)
14 SCC 272, which stipulates that the offence of “organised crime”
could be said to have been constituted by at least one incident of
continuation apart from continuing unlawful activity evidenced by more
than one chargesheets in the preceding ten years.
6. Thus, it was submitted that the last case, prior to the present
one, was registered against the Appellant on 14.11.2019, i.e., before the
GCTOC Act came into force in the State of Gujarat (as the GCTOC
Act came into force in the State of Gujarat w.e.f. 01.12.2019). Learned
counsel further submitted that out of sixteen accused, four accused are
absconding and, in total, twelve accused are charge-sheeted, out of which
six accused are on bail. Thus, even on the ground of parity,
it is submitted
that the Appellant be also enlarged on bail.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT-STATE:
7. Mr S V Raju, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India,
appearing for the State, submits that the Appellant-accused was well-
acquainted with accused no.1 Jaysukh @ Jayesh Muljibhai Ranpara
(Patel). Mr Raju submitted that the Appellant became close to accused
no.1 Jaysukh @ Jayesh Muljibhai Ranpara (Patel) during the 2015
Municipal Election and was an accused in the Patel Reservation
Movement riots. It was contended that apart from the present case,
eight other cases have been registered against the Appellant and he is
trying to pressurize the authorities by spreading false news with regard
to land deal relating to survey No.961 being cancelled; but when his
efforts failed, witnesses were threatened and intimidated to cancel the
land deal(s). It was further submitted that the Appellant facilitated the
first meeting on 01.11.2019 between the accused no.1 and PWs No. 5
and 6 and others and when the extortion money was not paid, another
meeting was conducted in which Rs. 2,19,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
243
and Nineteen Lakhs) was paid to the members of the organised crime
syndicate. Again, on 20.02.2022 after the arrest of the Appellant, his son
is accused of facilitating a call between PW 5 and accused no.1 and
extort ing Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs). It was submitted
that the Court may consider the prayer for bail only after the examination
of protected witnesses, whose statements directly prove the involvement
of the Appellant in the crime(s). Moreover, it was submitted that out of
the six co-accused released on bail, five are out on default bail, and only
one accused had se- cured regular bail.
ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:
8. Having examined the rival contentions, the Court does not
consider it necessary to go into the legal as- pect pertaining to the
applicability of the GCTOC Act in praesenti, as the current Appeal has
been filed only for the purpose of seeking bail during the pendency of
the trial.
9. Had there been no other case against the Appellant and no
material, at least prima facie, to indicate his regular participation in any
crime, the Court could have considered his prayer, but keeping in view
his al- leged role, we are not inclined to exercise discretion in his favour,
for now. When we speak of discretion, we have in mind “judicial
discretion” as explained in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public
Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240:
“3. What, then, is “judicial discretion” in this bail context? In
the elegant words of Ben- jamin
Cardozo [ The Nature of the
Judicial Process — Yale University Press (1921)]:
“The Judge, even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He
is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a knight-errant
roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of
good- ness. He is to draw his inspiration from conse- crated
principles. He is not to yield to spas- modic sentiment, to vague
and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a discretion
in- formed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined
by system, and subordinated to “the primordial necessity of
order in the social life”. Wide enough in all conscience is the
field of discretion that remains.”
Even so it is useful to notice the tart terms of Lord Camden
that [ 1 Bovu, Law Dict., Rawles’ III Revision p. 885 — quoted
ATULBHAI VITHALBHAI BHANDERI v. STATE OF GUJARAT
[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
244
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
in Judi- cial Discretion — National College of the State
Judiciary, Rano, Nevada p. 14] “the discretion of a Judge is
the law of tyrants: it is always unknown, it is different in
different men; it is casual, and depends upon constitution,
tem- per and passion. In the best, it is oftentimes caprice; in
the worst, it is every vice, folly and passion to which human
nature is liable. “
4. Some jurists have regarded the term “judi- cial discretion”
as a misnomer. Nevertheless, the vesting of discretion is the
unspoken but inescapable, silent command of our judicial
system, and those who exercise it will remember that discretion,
when applied to a Court of Justice, means sound discretion
guided by law. It must be governed by rule, not by humour; it
must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but legal and
regular.
An appeal to a Judge’s discretion is an appeal to his judicial
conscience. The discretion must be exercised, not in opposition
to, but in ac- cordance with, established principles of law.
[Judicial discretion, (ibid) p. 33]”
(emphasis supplied)
10. The fact, that out of the twelve charge-sheeted accused, six
co-accused have not been granted bail, five have availed the benefit of
default bail and only one is on regular bail, have also persuaded this
Court not to interfere. We have also considered the allegations levelled
and perused carefully the statements of the witnesses shown to the
Court. In Niranjan Singh v
Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, (1980) 2
SCC 559, this Court opined:
“3… Detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate
documentation of the merits should be avoided while passing
orders on bail applica- tions. No party should have the
impression that his case has been prejudiced. To be satisfied
about a prima facie case is needed but it is not the same as an
exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.”
(emphasis supplied)
11. In Vilas Pandurang Pawar v State of Maharashtra, (2012)
8 SCC 795, this Court observed “…Moreover, while considering the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
245
application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other
material on record is limited. The court is not expected to indulge in
critical analysis of the evidence on record…”. We are in respectful
agreement with the law exposited in these cases. We consciously refrain
from detailing our views on the merits of the matter.
12. Insofar as parity is concerned, we need only reproduce the
apt observations from Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v Vishanbhai Hirabhai
Makwana (Koli), (2021) 6 SCC 230, of which we take note:
“26.… Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of
the accused. Merely observing that another accused who was
granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient
to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis
of parity has been estab- lished. In deciding the aspect of
parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in
relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost
importance. The High Court has pro- ceeded on the basis of
parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again
cannot pass muster under the law.”
(emphasis supplied)
13. In the facts and circumstances, at the present juncture, this
Court is not inclined to allow the prayer for enlarging the Appellant on
bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is hereby rejected.
14. However, the stand taken on behalf of the State of Gujarat is
that the prayer for bail of the Appellant may be considered only after the
protected witnesses are
examined. In this context, learned Additional
Solicitor General has indicated that six months’ time be granted for
recording statements of the protected witnesses.
15. In such light, it is observed that upon the completion of recording
of statements of the said protected witnesses, the Appellant is at liberty
to renew his plea for bail, if so advised.
16. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly, with liberty afore
granted. Pending application(s), if any, stand consigned to records.
Nidhi Jain
Appeal disposed of.
(Assisted by : Rakhi, LCRA)
ATULBHAI VITHALBHAI BHANDERI v. STATE OF GUJARAT
[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.]