LexRAVINDERSINGH @ RAVI PAVAR versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 1115 RAVINDERSINGH @ RAVI PAVAR v. STATE OF GUJARAT (Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2013 etc.) FEBRUARY 22, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: A B s.439(1) read with Art.136 of the Constitution - Bail - C Hooch tragedy - A large number of persons died and other suffered serious physical injuries by consuming country made liquor containing ethyl and methyl alcohol - Hald: The materials placed on record prima facie establish that the appellant was not a mere supplier of spurious alcohol but he D was involved in the criminal conspiracy of manufacturing spurious liquor along with the main accused and selling the same at various places through his men - Besides, the appellant is a habitual offender and is facing several similar cases - There is every likelihood that if the accused/appellant E, is released on bail, he would threaten the witnesses and again indulge in sale of spurious liquor - Therefore, the appellant is not at all entitled to bail at this stage - The record reveals that respondent in the other appeal is a prime conspirator and had indulged in illegally supplying ethyl and methyl alcohol F to main accused for manufacturing country made liquor - Further, the respondent is a habitual offender - There are several cases pending against him - He has also abused the bail granted to him in a different case - Taking note of all the aspects, the antecedents of the respondent, the gravity and G nature of offence, loss of human lives, the impact on the social fabric of the society, his continuous involvement in criminal activities while on bail, the Court is satisfied that the respondent does not deserve to continue to remain on bail - 1115 H 1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 1 S.C.R. A Accordingly, the judgment and order passed by High Court granting him bail is set aside - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 136. The appellant in Crl. A. No. 334 of 2013 and the 8 respondent in Crl. A. No. 335 and 336 of 2013 were charged with various offences punishable under the Penal Code, 1860 and Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, in the case relating to the hooch tragedy which resulted in death of 147 persons and serious physical injuries to 205 C others after consuming spurious country made liquor containing poisonous chemical methyl alcohol which was manufactured and supplied by accused persons. The application for bail filed by the appellant in Crl. A. No. 334 of 2013 was rejected whereas the bail applications of the respondent in Crl. A. 335 and 336 of 2013 were D allowed by the High Court. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 Normally, while considering the E application for bail, it is not necessary for the court to assess the materials placed by either side, discuss and arrive at a definite conclusion. However, taking note of the gravity of the offence, this Court has to deal with those aspects confining to the disposal of the bail F application. [para 11) [1121-D-E] 1.2 In a State having prohibition policy, supply of raw material for liquor, its production and distribution are illegal. It is a matter of common knowledge that if any one consumes liquor manufactured out of ethyl/methyl G alcohol, it would have very adverse effect on the body which can cause death or bodily injury as is likely to cause death. [para 26) [1127-G-H; 1128-A] H RAVINDERSINGH@ RAVI PAVAR v. STATE OF 1117 GUJARAT Crl. Appeal No. 334 of 2013 A 2.1 A perusal of the reasoning of the High Court as well as the materials placed by the prosecution prima face establish that the appellant was not a mere supplier of spurious alcohol but he was involved in the criminal conspiracy of manufacturing spurious liquor along with_ the main co-accused (A-1) and selling the same at various places through his men. The statements of various persons support the greater role played by the accused/ appellant. [para 14) [1123-A-B] B c 2.2 It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that the appellant is a "habitual offender" and is facing more than 20 cases including similar cases under the various provisions of IPC and the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. It is further pointed out that there is every D likelihood that if the accused/appellant is released on bail, he would threaten the witnesses and again indulge in sale of spurious liquor. The appellant cannot claim parity with other accused in claiming bai
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.