Gujarat High Court

Raju Krupagiri Rajput vs State Of Gujarat on 13 January, 2025

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/25055/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2025

undefined

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 25055 of 2024
(FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET)

=======================================================
RAJU KRUPAGIRI RAJPUT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=======================================================
Appearance:
S D MANSURI(7509) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SOAHAM JOSHI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=======================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI

Date : 13/01/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. The present application, which is a successive
bail application after the rejection of earlier
bail application being Criminal Misc. Application
No.18701/2023 vide order dated 04.12.2023, is
filed under
Section 439
of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection
with the FIR being C.R. No.III-8/2022 registered
with the ATS Police Station, Ahmedabad for the
offence punishable under
Sections 8(c)
,
21(c)
and
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substance Act, 1985.

2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. S.D. Mansuri for the
applicant and learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi for the
respondent - State of Gujarat.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that
the so-called incident has occurred in the evening

Page 1 of 7

Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Jan 13 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 13 21:50:01 IST 2025

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/25055/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2025

undefined

of 30.11.2022, for which, FIR has been lodged on
the very same day i.e. on 30.11.2022 and in
connection with the same, the applicant has been
arrested on 11.01.2023 and since then, he is in
judicial custody. Learned advocate submitted that
the applicant is not named in the FIR and only on
the basis of the statement of the co-accused, the
applicant is arraigned as accused. Learned
advocate submitted that the applicant was not
found in conscious possession of the prohibited
contraband articles and there is no recovery or
discovery at the instance of the present applicant

- accused.

4. Learned advocate, at this stage, submitted that
this is a successive bail application preferred by
the application after the rejection of earlier
bail application being Criminal Misc. Application
No.18701/2023 vide order dated 04.12.2023, however
while rejecting said application, the aspect of
non-compliance of the mandatory provision of

Section 52A
of the NDPS has not been considered
and wrongly rejected the said application because
the communication in that regard, which had been
undertaken by the IO for complying with the said
provision, is not part and parcel of the
chargesheet papers. It is, therefore, submitted
that only on that count, the bail application of
the applicant may be considered and the applicant
may be granted bail. Learned advocate further
submitted that the applicant is in jail since

Page 2 of 7

Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Jan 13 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 13 21:50:01 IST 2025

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/25055/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2025

undefined

11.01.2023 and thus, more than 12 months are over
and, therefore, the applicant may not be kept
behind the bar for indefinite period. He further
submitted that even in recent past, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has also issued guidelines in case
of delay in trial and the fact that "bail is a
rule" and "jail is an exception". It is,
therefore, urged that the present application may
be allowed.

5. On the other hand, learned APP, Mr. Joshi for the
respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail
looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.
He submitted that in fact, at the time of hearing
of earlier bail application, all the aspects
raised by learned advocate for the applicant have
been considered and as stated above, this is a
successive bail application preferred by the
applicant but there is no changed circumstances
for filing such application. He further submitted
that in fact, the aspect of non-compliance of the
provision of
Section 52A
of the NDPS has been
considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court
while passing an order dated 21.08.2024 in
Criminal Misc. Application No.19761/2023 in case
of co-accused and the Coordinate Bench of this
Court has rejected the said application
considering the said fact, therefore, reliance
placed by learned advocate for the applicant on
that aspect cannot be considered at this stage.

6. Learned APP submitted that the present application

Page 3 of 7

Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Jan 13 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 13 21:50:01 IST 2025

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/25055/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2025

undefined

is a successive bail application after the
rejection of earlier bail application, however,
the present application is preferred without
disclosing any changed circumstance except abvoe
and, hence, this application can be said to be
'review application' and power of review
application is very limited and when there is
technical and/or arithmetical error, review
application can be preferred, which can be
entertained but in the present case, the applicant
has failed to show any changed circumstance and
the reasons, which are mentioned in the memo of
application, were at all available at the earlier
point of time when earlier bail application was
rejected.

7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on
behalf of the respective parties and perused the
papers of the investigation and considered the
allegations levelled against the applicant and the
role played by the applicant. I have also
considered the reasoning given by the concerned
court while rejecting the bail application and the
affidavit filed by the IO opposing the said
application.

8. It is the settled position of the law that, at
this juncture detailed discussion of evidence and
canvassing of the allegations contained in FIR as
well as affidavit of the concerned Investigating
Officer or the merits of the case as well, is not
necessary and should be avoided.

Page 4 of 7

Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Jan 13 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 13 21:50:01 IST 2025

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/25055/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2025

undefined

9. It is a well settled principle of law that when
the successive application comes before the Court,
the Court would be very conscious while
considering the same. It is also a settled
position of law that successive bail applications
are permissible under the change circumstances and
the change circumstances must be substantial one
which has direct impact on the earlier decision
and not merely a cosmetic changes which are of
little or no consequences. As held by the Apex
Court in
State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain
Buddhikota Subha Rao
, reported in AIR 1989 SC
2292, that successive bail application can be
entertained by the Court when substantial change
is established by the accused, which would entitle
him for getting bail in successive bail
application. The Court should not pass the order
of releasing him on bail in successive bail
application merely establishing some cosmetic
change between time gap of two applications. There
should be drastic change during the period between
two applications, which would entitle the accused
for bail.
The Apex Court in the case of
Kalyanchandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan, reported
in (2005) 2 SCC 42 while dealing with the issue of
successive bail application has observed that
without change in the circumstances, the
subsequent bail application would be deemed to be
seeking a review of the earlier rejection order
which is not permissible under the criminal law.

Page 5 of 7

Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Jan 13 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 13 21:50:01 IST 2025

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/25055/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2025

undefined

The Apex Court has further observed that while
entertaining such undefined consequent bail
application, the Court has a duty to consider the
reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail
application was rejected and what are the fresh
grounds which persuade it warranting the
evaluation and consideration of the bail
application afresh and to take a view different
from one taken in the earlier application.

10. It is found out from the arguments canvassed by
learned advocate for the applicant that main
argument of learned advocate for the applicant is
with regard to non-fulfillment of the required
procedure as envisaged under
Section 52A
of the
NDPS Act and on the strength of the said argument,
bail is sought for. It is, however, required to be
noted that as can be found from the submissions
canvassed by learned APP that in case of co-
accused, who had filed Criminal Misc. Application
No.19761/2023, the Coordinate Bench of this Court,
after considering the submissions and considering
the said aspect, has rejected the said application
by detailed order. It is submitted that it is
specifically observed in the said order that the
procedure under
Section 52A
of the NDPS has been
carried out by the Investigating Agency belatedly
but the said aspect is a matter or proof and would
required consideration at the time of trial. Thus
the said view adopted by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court can be said to be just, legal and

Page 6 of 7

Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Jan 13 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 13 21:50:01 IST 2025

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/25055/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2025

undefined

proper, which in my considered opinion, applies in
the facts of the present case. Over and above,
learned advocate has failed to point out any
changed circumstances. Therefore in absence of any
changed circumstances, once again present
application is preferred agitating same grounds,
which in the opinion of this Court, is not
available to the applicant in a successive bail
application.

11. Over and above that, strong apprehension has been
shown by prosecution that if the applicant is
released on bail then, there is possibility of
tampering with the evidence and fleeing away from
the trial. Therefore considering the nature of
offence, role attributed to the applicant and
played by him, I am of the opinion that the
present application deserves to be rejected.

12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the
present case, this Court is of the view that after
the rejection of earlier regular bail application,
there is no change in the circumstances.
Accordingly, the present application is rejected.

13. Needless to say that any expression of opinion
given in this order does not mean an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case and the trial
Court will not be influenced by any observations
made therein.

(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.)
Gautam

Page 7 of 7

Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Jan 13 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 13 21:50:01 IST 2025