Gujarat High Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation ... vs Raj Nileshbhai Makwana on 4 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19404/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL)
NO. 19404 of 2022
==========================================================
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH,
GANDHINAGAR THROUGH GOVIND SINGH SOLANKI
Versus
RAJ NILESHBHAI MAKWANA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RC KODEKAR(1395) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RAJESH K KANANI(2157) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 04/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - CBI has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 10.08.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Ahmedabad and thereby cancel the anticipatory bail granted in favour of respondent No.1 - original accused.
2. Heard learned advocate R. C. Kodekar for the applicant - CBI, learned advocate Mr. Rajesh Kanani for respondent No.1 - original accused and learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni for respondent No.2 - State.
Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 22:11:41 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19404/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined
3. Learned advocate Mr. R. C. Kodekar appearing on behalf of applicant - Central Bureau of Investigation has submitted that one FIR is registered against the respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Pursuant to the registration of the aforesaid FIR, investigation commenced and as respondent No.1 was seriously apprehending his arrest, he preferred an application seeking anticipatory bail before the learned Trial Court. The said application is considered by the Court concerned by imposing certain terms and conditions. One of such condition is that, respondent No.1 has to cooperate with the investigating officer. Learned advocate Mr. Kodekar further submits that in fact investigating officer has called upon the respondent No.1 by issuing notice, but reasons best known to him, he has chosen not to appear before the IO and therefore IO was constrained to file an application before the learned Trial Court to cancel the bail granted in favour of respondent No.1 - accused. The said application has not been entertained by the learned Trial Court and further time is extended in favour of the respondent No.1. Despite the fact that time is extended by the learned Trial Court, respondent No.1 has chosen not to appear with the IO and cooperate in the investigation and therefore second in point of time cancellation of bail application has been preferred Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 22:11:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19404/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined by the applicant. The said application has not been entertained. Being aggrieved by the said order, present application is filed.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Kodekar further submits that in fact with a sole intent to carry out further investigation and obtaining voice sample for carrying out voice spectrography test, requirement of respondent No.1 was needed but he did not remain present before the investigating officer. Therefore, the IO could not be able to carry out investigation in a particular direction. However, during the pendency of the present proceedings, respondent No.1 has already cooperated with the IO and personally remained present and his voice sample for carrying out voice spectrography test was also taken. He further submits that the voice spectrography test of the respondent No.1 is also carried out and report of the test is also received by the applicant - CBI. He further submits that after the release of the respondent No.1 on anticipatory bail, investigating officer concerned has already submitted charge-sheet before the concerned Court and thereafter supplementary charge-sheet is also submitted. Thus, considering the aforesaid overall facts of the present case, appropriate order may be passed.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Kikani for respondent No.1
- accused has opposed present application with vehemence and submitted that after the respondent Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 22:11:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19404/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined No.1 came to be released on anticipatory bail, he was called upon by the investigating officer by issuing notice. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, respondent No.1 could not be able to appear before the IO, however, he has already informed the officer concerned in writing. He further submits that at the time of opposing present application, respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit- in-reply specifically stating that he had remained present before the IO on 03.12.2020, 04.12.2020, 05.12.2020, 06.12.2020, 07.12.2020 and 08.12.2020 and thereby extended all kind of cooperation to the IO. He submits that at the time of rejecting the application preferred by the applicant for cancellation of bail of the respondent No.1, all the facts have been considered by the Court concerned and the order passed by the learned Trial Court is just, fair and based upon the sound principle of law. He further submits that it is settled proposition of law that criteria and parameters of granting bail and cancellation of bail already granted are quite different and distinct, as granting bail focuses on a prima facie case and the likelihood of an accused misusing liberty, while cancellation requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances such as abuse of bail conditions, tampering with evidence, or fleeing justice. Cancellation is a more stringent standard, as once liberty is granted, withdrawing it requires compelling justification, unlike the initial preventive evaluation for bail. He further submits Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 22:11:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19404/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined that when the respondent No.1 has extended full co- opearation to the investigating officer and he remained present as and when called upon by the IO and report of his voice spectrography test is also received, the application may not be entertained by cancelling the bail of the respondent No.1.
6. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials placed on record, it is found out that pursuant to the FIR in question, respondent no.1 herein - original accused preferred an application seeking anticipatory bail before the learned Court concerned, which came to be allowed by the Court by imposing certain conditions. One of such condition is that respondent No.1 shall have to cooperate to the IO. Thereafter, the IO called upon the respondent No.1 for the purpose of carrying out further investigation and obtaining his voice for the purpose of carrying out voice spectrography test. However, respondent No.1 could not remain present before the IO for some unforeseen reason. The applicant - CBI, therefore, preferred an application seeking cancellation of bail of respondent no.1, which was not entertained by the learned Court concerned, however, the learned Court directed the respondent No.1 to remain present before the IO for the purpose of interrogation, as and when directed by the IO. It is the case of the applicant that even after the aforesaid direction issued by the learned Court concerned to remain present before the Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 22:11:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19404/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined IO, respondent No.1 has chosen not to appear before the IO and therefore once again an application seeking cancellation of bail of respondent No.1 has been preferred. However, the said application has not been entertained by the Court and therefore present application is preferred. Now, as per the submission of learned advocate Mr. Kodekar for the applicant, during the pendency of the present proceedings, voice sample of respondent No.1 was already taken for the purpose of his voice spectrography test and report is also received. Thus, respondent No.1 has cooperated during the course of investigation and during the interragnum period, charge-sheet as well as supplementary charge-sheet is also filed. It is also pertinent to note that twice the applications preferred by the applicant - CBI for cancellation of bail of respondent No.1 - accused have not been entertained by the learned Trial Court, after appreciating and considering the materials available before it.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the application is dismissed. Notice discharged.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) LAVKUMAR J JANI Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 22:11:41 IST 2025