Gujarat High Court
Rasikbhai Valjibhai Bhadaniya(Patel) vs State Of Gujarat on 21 June, 2023
R/CR.MA/33601/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/06/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 33601 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed YES
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy NO
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
RASIKBHAI VALJIBHAI BHADANIYA(PATEL)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR Y J PATEL(3985) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MAITHILI D MEHTA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 21/06/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent - State. Page 1 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 23 20:38:43 IST 2023
R/CR.MA/33601/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/06/2023
2. This application is preferred under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the applicant - original complainant for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.2 herein - original accused by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Limbdi vide order dated 30.11.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.275 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 384, 387, 447, 506(2), 507, 114 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the offence registered being I-C.R. No.98 of 2016 before Sayla Police Station, Surendranagar.
3. Heard Mr.Y.J. Patel, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant - original complainant and Ms.Maithili D. Mehta, the learned APP appearing for the respondent No.1 - State of Gujarat.
4. Mr.Patel, the learned advocate for the applicant, submitted that the impugned order is ex facie illegal and Page 2 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 23 20:38:43 IST 2023 R/CR.MA/33601/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/06/2023 arbitrary and that the same is passed without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that during the hearing of the regular bail application, second complaint came to be registered against the respondent accused being C.R. No.I-101 of 2016 before Sayla Police Station, Surendranagar. He further submitted that the respondent accused continued to commit offences and two different complaints came to be filed with regard to extortion. He also submitted that even after granting bail, the respondent accused has committed breach of conditions imposed by the trial court and also not co- operated with the investigation and even did not remain present before the trial court during the trial. He also submitted that the respondent accused is a head strong person of the society and he therefore, urges before the Court that the application may be allowed and the bail granted to the respondent accused may be cancelled.
5. Learned APP Ms.Mehta, appearing for the Page 3 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 23 20:38:43 IST 2023 R/CR.MA/33601/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/06/2023 respondent No.1 - State, has also supported the present application and on the information received from the concerned I.O., she has confirmed that the respondent accused is involved in the offence and he is having antecedents also. She has submitted that the Court may pass appropriate orders.
6. I have perused the FIR and the impugned order passed by the Trial Court in the application for regular bail. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates appearing on behalf of both the sides and the averments made in the application. The learned trial court while granting bail, imposed certain conditions which reads as under :
Conditions:-
(1) Until the charge-sheet is filed, the accused shall not enter into the boundaries of Surendranagar District without the prior permission of the Lower Court and that if the accused is called by any investigating agency in connection with this offence or any other offence and if the accused has to attend the Court on adjournments, he can enter qua that specific purpose and no permission would be required.
(2) If the accused holds passport, the same shall be deposited in the Court immediately and if he does not hold any passport, affidavit to that effect shall be produced.
(3) The accused shall submit the details of the address, within 24 hours before the Lower Court with reliable evidences, at which he is going to reside during the entire Page 4 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 23 20:38:43 IST 2023 R/CR.MA/33601/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/06/2023 period while he is enlarged on bail.
(4) The accused shall not threaten, intimidate or allure the prosecution witnesses.
(5) The accused shall give full cooperation in police investigation. Moreover, the accused shall submit the address before the police station where the accused is going to stay.
Moreover, until the charge-sheet is filed, the accused shall mark is presence before the concerned police station where he is going to reside, on every Sunday between 11.00 am to 2.00 pm. The Lower Court shall inform regarding this order to the local Police Station where the accused is going to reside.
(6) The Lower Court shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order for submitting bailbond and for getting required alterations made in the conditions.
7. It was pointed out by the learned advocate for the applicant before this Court that the respondent accused has never remained present before the trial court during the trial and has committed breach of conditions imposed by the trial court, and even after granting bail, the respondent accused has committed another offence. However, though this fact was brought to the notice of the trial court, the trial court had not considered all these aspects and granted bail to the respondent accused. Moreover, in the present proceedings also, twice the notice was issued by this Court, but the respondent accused chosen not to remain present before this Court. It seems that after releasing on Page 5 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 23 20:38:43 IST 2023 R/CR.MA/33601/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/06/2023 bail, the respondent accused has not co-operated with the investigation and also not present personally before the trial court. However, it is to be noted herein that the State has not preferred any application for cancellation of bail. This application for cancellation of bail is filed at the behest of the original complainant.
8. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the catena of decisions that the accused granted bail and entitled to liberty if he is not co-operating with the investigating agency or not remaining present and flouting the conditions imposed upon him while granting bail, then in that case, he is not entitled for any leniency and in that circumstances, the bail is required to be cancelled. The reported decisions of the Apex Court in this regard are summarized as under :
[1] CBI versus Santosh Karnani and Anr., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 427; [2] Deepak Yadav versus State of UP and Anr., reported in [2022] 8 SCC 559; [3] Kamla Devi versus State of Rajasthan and Page 6 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 23 20:38:43 IST 2023 R/CR.MA/33601/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/06/2023 Anr., reported in [2022] 6 SCC 725; [4] Manoj Kumar Khokhar versus State of Rajasthan and Anr., reported in [2022] 3 SCC 501;
[5] Brijmani Devi versus Pappu Kumar and Anr., reported in [2022] 4 SCC 497;
[6] Supreme Bhiwandi Wada Manor
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd versus State of
Maharashtra and Anr., reported in [2021] 8 SCC 753;
[7] Nathu Singh versus State of UP and Ors., reported in [2021] 6 SCC 64;
[8] Jitendra Taneja versus State of UP and ors., reported in [2021] 5 SCC 308; and [9] Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb, reported in [2021] 3 SCC 713.
9. Considering the seriousness of the crime and keeping in mind the criminal antecedents of the accused, the possibility of tampering with the evidence cannot be ruled out which eventually would have a material bearing on the quality of justice. In view of aforesaid facts, request of cancellation of bail granted to the accused is acceded to.
Page 7 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 23 20:38:43 IST 2023 R/CR.MA/33601/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/06/2023
10. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the decisions of the Apex Court as aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the present application deserves to be allowed and it is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Limbdi, dated 30.11.2016 in Criminal Misc. Application No.275 of 2016 is hereby quashed. The bail stands cancelled. The respondent accused is directed to surrender to the Investigating Officer within a period of two weeks from the date of this order. If the respondent accused fails to do so, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to approach the concerned Sessions Court for issuance of non-bailable warrant or take appropriate action against the respondent accused. Rule is made absolute.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly Page 8 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 23 20:38:43 IST 2023