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 landgrabbing 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 : [1980] 3 SCR 15; Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) (2021) 6 SCC 230 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.