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 number of casualties, we are of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of bail.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.

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
1Page 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
2Page 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
3Page 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
4Page 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.
5Page 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
6Page 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
7Page 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 coaccused 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
8Page 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
9Page 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.
10Page 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
11Page 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 @
12Page 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
13Page 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
14Page 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
15Page 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
16Page 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
17Page 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)
18Page 19
FEBRUARY 22, 2013.
19Page 20
20