Ravindersingh @ Ravi Pavar Vs State of Gujarat

Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 334 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No 3334 of 2012)

Ravindersingh @ Ravi Pavar .... Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 335 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4026 of 2012)

AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 336 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No 4027 of 2012)

J U D G M E N T

P.Sathasivam,J.

1) Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

2) Ravindersingh @ Ravi Pavar has preferred appeal

arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3334 of 2012 before this Court

against the final judgment and order dated 10.02.2012

1

Page 2

passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in

Criminal Misc. Application No. 1281 of 2012 whereby the

High Court dismissed his application filed under Section 439

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’)

seeking regular bail in C.R. No. 252 of 2009 registered with

Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences

punishable under Sections 302, 307, 328, 272, 273, 201,

109, 114, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for

short) and Sections 65(a)(b)(c)(d)(e), 66(1)(b), 67-1A, 72, 75,

81 and 83 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.

3) The State of Gujarat, aggrieved by the judgment and

order dated 29.09.2011, passed by the High Court in Criminal

Misc. Application Nos. 12384 and 12385 of 2011 whereby the

High Court enlarged one Jayesh Hiralal Thakkar (A-2) on bail

in connection with C.R. No. 161 of 2009 registered with

Kagdapith Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences

punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 307, 328, 272, 273,

201, 217, 221, 109 and 114 of IPC and Sections 65(a)(b)(c)

(d)(e), 66(1)(b), 68, 72, 75, 81 and 83 of the Bombay

Prohibition Act, 1949 and C.R. No. 252 of 2009 registered

2

Page 3

with Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad for the very same

offences, has filed the other two appeals arising out of

special leave petition Nos. 4026 and 4027 of 2012.

4) Since the subject-matter of all the three appeals is one

and the same, they are being disposed of by this common

judgment.

S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 3334 of 2012:

5) The case relates to the hooch tragedy which resulted

into the death of 147 persons and serious physical injuries to

205 others after consuming spurious country-made liquor

consisting poisonous chemical Methyl Alcohol in different

parts of the Ahmedabad city, Gujarat, in July, 2009 for which

case has been registered against several accused persons

under various Sections of IPC and the Bombay Prevention

Act, 1949 with Odhav and Kagdapith Police Stations vide C.R.

Nos. 252 and 161 of 2009 respectively.

6) The charge framed against Ravindersingh @ Ravi Pavar

(accused No.11) is that he was a party to a meeting held with

other accused persons prior to the date of the incident

wherein they conspired to manufacture and distribute

3

Page 4

country-made liquor consisting poisonous chemical Methyl

Alcohol, in order to gain financial benefit, by selling the same

due to its low cost. The charge sheet further proceeds that

as a part of criminal conspiracy, he along with other accused,

agreed to manufacture and distribute/sell such liquor to

suppliers in spite of the knowledge that on consumption of

the same, it can cause death or severe physical

damage/injury to the consumer.

7) When the accused/appellant moved an application

under Section 439 of the Code in connection with C.R. No.

252 of 2009, before the High Court, on going into the specific

allegations against him, his role and involvement in the

hooch tragedy which resulted into more than 147 deaths in

the city of Ahmedabad and after satisfying prima facie case

as well as considering the gravity of the crime punishable

under Section 302 etc. the High Court rejected his third

successive bail application.

8) Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel for the appellant,

after taking us through the allegations in the charge sheet

and connected materials submitted that in the absence of

4

Page 5

any material that the appellant had any knowledge that illicit

liquor was poisonous or that he had any intention to cause

the death of the deceased persons at the most it is the case

under Section 304 of IPC and not under Section 302 of IPC.

He further submitted that the High Court failed to consider

that the co-accused, alleged to be having similar role as that

of the appellant as well as those accused allegedly having

graver role, have already been granted bail and, therefore,

on the ground of parity also, the accused/appellant deserves

to be enlarged on bail on the same terms and conditions.

9) Ms. Hemantika Wahi, learned counsel appearing for the

State, by taking us through the allegations mentioned in the

charge sheet, statement of witnesses and the gravity of the

offence submitted that in view of the appellant’s association

with the main accused, namely, Vinod @ Dagri (A-1) and also

taking note of the fact that he is a “habitual offender”

involved in many similar offences, it is not desirable to

enlarge him on bail and according to her, the High Court was

fully justified in dismissing his bail application.

5

Page 6

10) We have carefully considered the allegations, materials

placed, gravity of the offence etc. in detail.

11) Normally, while considering the 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, we have

no other option except to deal with those aspects confining

to the disposal of the bail application. The charge sheet

(Annexure-P3) filed along with the special leave petition

gives the details of involvement/role played by the accused

persons. The role of the present appellant (A-11) reads as

under:

“The accused No.11 Ravindersingh @ Ravi s/o Jayramsingh Pavar mentioned in column No.1 who was doing the business of country and foreign liquor with his partners column No.1 accused Nos. 29 and 30 and having the criminal history and remaining in contact with the accused No.1 for obtaining cheap country liquor having Methyl Alcohol made the partnership with the accused No.1 and obtained county liquor having Methyl Alcohol from accused No.1 and in spite of aware of the fact that it caused physical harm which cause death of the persons brought it from Vanthvadi village on 06.07.2009 through his persons accused No. 32 and 33 and sold it on cheap rates to the column No.1 accused Nos. 27, 28 and 31 and column No. 2 accused Nos. 1 and 2 and also selling it to his own liquor stand place situated in Bapunagar area behind General Hospital through his persons and on drinking caused the death of the persons and also causing the serious injuries to the peoples fulfilled the criminal conspiracy and on

6

Page 7

06.07.2009 lots of people died in the Ahmedabad city drinking the poisonous liquor and admitted into the Hospitals and in spite of knowing the said facts continue to sell the poisonous country liquor committed the serious nature offence and thereafter disposed off the evidence had disposed the chemicalized poisonous liquor which is in his possession.”

12) Mr. Tulsi, learned senior counsel for the

accused/appellant has contended that the only allegation

against him is that he has simply sold the country-made

liquor and prima facie no case is being made out against him

for manufacturing spurious liquor and, therefore, he cannot

be charged under Sections 302, 307 and 328 of IPC. On

going through the entire materials, we are unable to accept

the same.

13) The materials placed by the prosecution show that the

appellant was not just a supplier of alcohol but was one of

the main conspirators along with Vinod @ Dagri (A-1) in the

manufacture of spurious alcohol along with other co-accused.

It is the case of the prosecution as established by the

statement of witnesses that the appellant, along with main

accused, with a view to earn easy money, hatched a

conspiracy for manufacturing spurious alcohol from Methyl

7

Page 8

Alcohol, very well knowing that it is poisonous and can cause

death or severe physical damage/injury on consumption.

The statements of various persons relied on by the

prosecution supports the above stand. The investigation

further revealed that on the next day of the hooch tragedy in

July, 2009, the appellant and his two associates had gone to

one-Farzana Banu to sell the huge stock of spurious liquor,

since the premises of the appellant was raided by the Police.

14) 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 Vinod @ Dagri (A-1) and selling the same at various

places through his men. The statements of various persons

including one Dahiben support the greater role played by the

accused/appellant.

15) Mr. Tulsi, learned senior counsel has also claimed parity

with the co-accused Jayesh Hiralal Thakker (A-2), who has

been granted bail by the High Court, vide order dated

8

Page 9

29.09.2011, in the similar offence and claimed similar order

in respect of the present appellant - Ravindersingh @ Ravi

Pavar. He also brought to our notice that bail has been

granted to one Minaben (A-27) on 20.07.2011 and the State

has not filed any special leave petition before this Court. As

far as grant of bail to Jayesh Hiralal Thakker is concerned, the

State has filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 4026

and 4027 of 2012, which we are going to consider after the

conclusion of the present appeal. Hence, the appellant

cannot claim parity with the co-accused Jayesh Hiralal

Thakker. Insofar as the order granting bail to A-27 is

concerned, we were taken through the reasons appended to

in her bail application and also of the fact that she being a

lady, we are of the view that the appellant cannot claim

parity with the said accused in claiming bail.

16) Apart from the above materials, learned counsel for the

State has also brought to our notice 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

9

Page 10

out that there is every likelihood that if the

accused/appellant is released on bail, he would threaten the

witnesses and again indulge in sale of spurious liquor.

17) It is a well known fact that Methanol is a poisonous

substance and by adding the same while manufacturing

spurious alcohol, it can have devastating results and can

cause death or severe damage to health or injuries to

anyone who consumes it. Further, such type of offences, as

in the case on hand, are against the society at large and who

commit the same do not deserve any leniency, particularly,

in the State of Gujarat where complete prohibition is being

followed. Merely because the accused/appellant had spent

three years as an undertrial prisoner, taking note of the

gravity of the offence, he is not entitled for bail. As observed

earlier, in view of the gravity of the offence, death of a

number of persons, injury to several others and the impact

on the society as a whole, we hold that the appellant is not at

all entitled to bail at this stage and the High Court has rightly

denied his application for bail, consequently, the appeal of

the accused fails and the same is dismissed.

10

Page 11

Appeals filed by the State: S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos. 4026 and 4027 of 2012

18) The above mentioned appeals have been preferred by

the State wherein the respondent–Jayesh Hiralal Thakker (A-

2) is an accused in C.R. No.161 of 2009 registered with

Kagdapith Police Station, Ahmedabad and C.R. No. 252 of

2009 registered with Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad and

in both the cases, he has been charged under various

sections of IPC and the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, as

mentioned earlier and was granted bail by the High Court.

19) The respondent is Accused No. 2 in C.R. No. 252 of 2009

and C.R. No. 161 of 2009 registered at Odhav and Kagdapith

Police Stations respectively wherein total of 147 persons died

and 205 persons were seriously injured after consuming

spurious liquor prepared from chemicals like ethanol and

methanol, which were supplied by the respondent-accused,

who was trading in those hazardous chemicals, to Vinod @

Dagri (A-1) for the preparation of country-made liquor. It is

highlighted by the prosecution that during the course of

investigation, it was revealed that respondent (A-2) is a

11

Page 12

prime conspirator and had indulged in supplying methyl

alcohol for manufacturing country made liquor. According to

the prosecution, the statements recorded from seven

witnesses reveal about the involvement of the respondent. It

is also projected by the prosecution that one of the witnesses

stated that near the petrol pump at Mogar, there is a godown

and two barrels were put in his vehicle to be delivered to A-1,

who was the mastermind in preparation of country made

liquor out of methyl alcohol, supplied by A-2 at village

Vanthwadi. It is also their case that respondent (A-2) had

purchased about 500-600 plastic and iron barrels as per his

requirement and again in the month of July, he purchased 70

more barrels. The prosecution has also projected that A-2

had sufficient knowledge about the properties of methyl

alcohol and that it is poisonous to use in the preparation of

country liquor. Despite this, the respondent used to obtain

the same illegally from the tankers coming from Kutch and

Mumbai through absconding co-accused and kept the same

in his custody without permit and supplied it to Vinod @

12

Page 13

Dagri (A-1) for the preparation of liquor. All these particulars

form part of charge sheet filed on 05.09.2009.

20) The specific allegations in the charge sheet about the

respondent (A-2) are as under:

“Accused No.2 Jayesh Hiralal Thakkar stated in the Column No.(1) having the criminal antecedents who is running illegal business of chemical at the Godown situated at the petrol Pump located at Village – Mogar, in company of the Accused No.3 named in the Column No.(1) and through the accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 mentioned in the Column No. (2) had illegally obtained the poisonous Methyl Alcohol from the Tankers coming from Bomby and Kutch possessed the same without any Pass or permit, and inspite of having knowledge regarding poisonousness of Methyl Alcohol and that it is to be used in preparing liquor the Accused Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 had sold the poisonous Methyl Alcohol to Accused No.1 for manufacturing Degenerated poisonous country liquor and thereby have played active role in the conspiracy with the view to earn monetary profit and after the declaration of Hooch Tragedy disposed of the Methyl Alcohol within their possession and had gone on run and thereby have committed serious offence.”

21) The information furnished by the prosecution clearly

shows that in a State having complete prohibition policy, the

supply of raw material for liquor, its production and

distribution are illegal. It is also demonstrated that

respondent (A-2) has illegally supplied poisonous chemicals

like ethyl and methyl alcohol to A-1 for the manufacture of

country made liquor. It is not in dispute that if anyone

consumes liquor manufactured out of ethyl/methyl alcohol, it 13

Page 14

would have a very adverse effect on the body and can cause

death or bodily injury as is likely to cause death. In spite of

the abundant materials placed by the prosecution and even

after taking note of the fact that the samples sent to Forensic

Science Laboratory (FSL) for analysis confirmed the presence

of methanol and ethanol and also of the fact that A-2 has

supplied those materials to A-1, the claim that he had no

knowledge about all these aspects is unacceptable. Though

the learned Single Judge of the High court perused and

verified the expert opinion of the Medical Officer, the FSL

report and noted that poisonous chemical is found, after

casually finding that there is no “meeting of mind” and

“agreement for criminal conspiracy” accepted the case of A-

2 and enlarged him on bail.

22) The other reason given by the High Court is that the

whole transaction in the said business of A-2 was looked after

by his nephew and in view of the fact that he has already

disposed of the petrol pump, concluded that prima facie

ingredients of Sections 299 and 300(4) of IPC would not

14

Page 15

attract and enlarged him on bail after imposing certain

conditions.

23) We have already noted that because of the conduct of

A-2 in supplying ethanol and methanol to A-1 for preparation

of spurious liquor, several casualties and injuries were

resulted and in view of the acceptable materials, we are

unable to accept the reasoning of the High Court. We are

constrained to observe that the High Court, in a casual way,

has concluded that since his business was looked after by his

nephew and he also disposed of his petrol pump, A-2 cannot

be blamed, which according to us, is not a valid ground for

enlarging him on bail.

24) In para 5 of the rejoinder affidavit, the State has

highlighted that A-2 is a “habitual offender” and there are 22

cases pending against him in various police stations. It is

also mentioned in the counter affidavit that during the period

while he was granted temporary bail by the High Court, he

indulged in an offence of theft and a case was registered

against him vide I-C.R. No. 92 of 2011 under Section 379 of

IPC by the Vasad Police Station for which he was arrested on

15

Page 16

10.08.2011 and later enlarged on bail. It is also brought to

our notice that the respondent A-2, while on regular bail, was

arrested on 13.09.2012 in Vadodara city in connection with

Javaharnagar Police Station crime registered vide I-C.R. No.

94 of 2012 under Sections 407, 408 and 120B and later on

he was released on bail.

25) Taking note of all these aspects, his antecedents, the

gravity and 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, we are satisfied that

respondent (A-2) does not deserve to continue to remain on

bail.

26) In a State having prohibition policy, supply of raw

material for liquor, its production and distribution are illegal

and A-2 has supplied those poisonous chemicals such as

ethyl and methyl alcohol to A-1 for the manufacture of

spurious country made liquor. It is a matter of common

knowledge that if any one consumes liquor manufactured out

of ethyl/methyl alcohol, it would have very adverse effect on

16

Page 17

the body which can cause death or bodily injury as is likely to

cause death.

27) Under these circumstances, considering the nature of

the offence and the manner in which A-2 supplied those

poisonous chemicals despite having full knowledge about its

consequences, we are satisfied that the respondent (A-2)

does not deserve liberty of remaining on bail. Accordingly,

the judgment and order dated 29.09.2011 passed by the

High Court in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 12384 and

12385 of 2011 is set aside. The respondent (A-2) is directed

to surrender before the court concerned within a period of

two weeks from today, failing which, necessary steps be

taken for his arrest in order to put him in jail.

28) It is unfortunate to note that in a State like Gujarat,

which strictly prohibits the use of alcohol in any form

whatsoever, the accused caused death and injuries to

several persons by supplying spurious country-made liquor.

Taking a serious view of the matter, the complexity of the

crime, the role played by accused persons as well as the

17

Page 18

number of casualties, we are of the view that it is not a fit

case for grant of bail.

29) In the light of the above discussion, the appeal of the

accused-Ravinder Singh @ Ravi Pavar is dismissed. We direct

the trial Judge to proceed with the trial on day to day basis

avoiding unnecessary adjournments. It is made clear that if

the trial continues beyond one year from today, they are free

to file fresh application before the trial Court. In that event, it

is for the concerned court to dispose of the bail application

on merits. It is made clear that whatever observations made

above are only for the purpose of disposal of the bail

application. It is for the trial Court to decide on the basis of

the materials placed before it in accordance with law.

30) The appeal of Ravindersingh @ Ravi Pavar (A-11) is

dismissed and the appeals filed by the State are allowed.

………….…………………………J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

………….…………………………J. NEW DELHI; (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)

18

Page 19

FEBRUARY 22, 2013.

19

Page 20

20