Gujarat High Court
Pravinbhai Bhagwansinh Sindha vs State Of Gujarat on 11 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17632/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
17632 of 2019
==========================================================
PRAVINBHAI BHAGWANSINH SINDHA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR FB BRAHMBHATT(1016) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
A R KADRI(7330) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR NIRAJ SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 11/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present application under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant has prayed for cancellation of bail granted vide order dated 4.06.2019 passed by the Learned City Sessions Court No.14, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Misc. Apllication No.3506 of 2019, in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.I-16 of 2011 registered with DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.
2. Learned advocate Mr.F.B. Brahmbhatt, appears for the applicant submits that applicant is one of the victim and respondent no.2 is the original accused against whom FIR Page 1 of 24 Uploaded by MS.KAJAL KISHORBHAI NAVLAKHA (HCD0076) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 23:16:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17632/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined has been registered by the complainant under the provisions of Section 406, 420 and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that, pursuance to registration of FIR investigation has commenced and Investigating Officer concerned had carried out investigation, during the course of investigation accused had been apprehended by the concerned Investigating Officer therefore, he preferred bail application and the said bail application rejected by the trial Court therefore, he approached this Court by way of filing bail application and the said bail application had been entertained by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 20.09.2012 by imposing certain terms and condition, one of the condition is that, respondent no.2 has to clear all outstanding dues of investors within a period of 4 months, in equal amounts of installments, the mode and manner to clear the dues is mentioned in a operative part of order. Learned advocate Mr.F.B. Brahmbhatt, submits one of the condition was, "if breach of any of the above condition is committed, in that event, the concerned Court will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter." He Page 2 of 24 Uploaded by MS.KAJAL KISHORBHAI NAVLAKHA (HCD0076) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 23:16:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17632/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined submits that as respondent no.2 herein had not complied the said terms and conditions and therefore, complainant/State has approached the Court by way of filing an application to cancel the bail granted by the Hon'ble Court, wherein notice was issued which was duly served to him, he appears through counsel and the Court has given full opportunity of hearing, and after considering and appreciating the material available on record, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that applicant herein has miserably failed to fulfill the terms and conditions imposed by the Hon'ble High Court and therefore, bail granted by the Hon'ble High Court had been cancelled on 01.02.2013, and at that time of deciding the said applications, learned Judge has made certain specific observations about the conduct of respondent no.2. He further submits that, then after upto year 2019 respondent no.2 would not have been found available. During the interregnum time respondent no.2 had filed one petition before the Court, wherein considering the chequered history of the matter, this Court has given specific directions to the Page 3 of 24 Uploaded by MS.KAJAL KISHORBHAI NAVLAKHA (HCD0076) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 23:16:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17632/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined DCP Police, Ahmedabad to take appropriate actions to apprehend the accused and on the strength of the said strict view adopted by this Hon'ble Court, respondent no.2 was apprehended by the Investigating Officer and due to the said turn of events occurred during the pendency of proceedings respondent no.2 had withdrawn the said petition. As respondent no.2 was taken into judicial custody therefore, he preferred regular bail application before the trial Court and the said application had been entertained by the Court concerned by assigning the reasons that, respondent no.2 had already complied with the terms and conditions imposed by this Hon'ble Court, in fact, the said findings and observations made by the trial Court are factually incorrect and far from the truth available on record.
3. Learned advocate Mr.F.B. Brahmbhatt submits that at the time of entertaining the bail application of the applicant, the Court concerned has made specific observations and findings that the conditions imposed by the Hon'ble High Court at the time of releasing the present Page 4 of 24 Uploaded by MS.KAJAL KISHORBHAI NAVLAKHA (HCD0076) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 23:16:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17632/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined applicant had already been fulfilled by the applicant and therefore, considering the above stated factual aspects, bail application of the applicant requires to be entertained. Learned advocate Mr.F.B. Brahmbhatt further submits that as soon as applicant had come to know about the said fact immediately, he had filed the petition before this Hon'ble Court wherein notice was issued, and thereafter, respondent appears, he has filed an undertaking before this Hon'ble Court that within a period of 4 months, he will deposit the rest of the amount. However, despite the fact, that an undertaking filed before this Hon'ble Court, the respondent no.2 has not deposited and paid the amount to the complainant which clearly goes on to show that respondent no.2 herein, systematically used to play fraud with the procedure of the Court, and taken undue advantage of leniency shown to him, by the Court or tried to throw sand in the eye of the Court and it seems that up to certain level he succeded in his attempts and during the pendency of (6 years) present applicant never ever made any attempt to show his bonafides. The record of this Court is a proof of the Page 5 of 24 Uploaded by MS.KAJAL KISHORBHAI NAVLAKHA (HCD0076) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 23:16:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17632/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined said inaction on the part of respondent no.2, since then, the present matter is pending before this Hon'ble Court at that stage and during the interregnum period respondent no.2 had not made any efforts to show his bonafide. Considering the above stated totality of the facts of the matter this is the fit case wherein, order passed by the trial court is required to be quash and set aside, as foundation of base of findings itself is incorrect and against the document available on record.
4. Learned advocate Mr.A.R. Kadri appears on behalf of respondent no.2 has submitted that, in fact, pursuant to order passed by this Hon'ble Court, respondent no.2 herein has tried to comply with the said order by way of paying certain amounts to the depositors. Learned advocate Mr.A.R, Kadri, has produced the receipts along with his affidavit in reply. He has submitted that despite the fact that he had complied the order of this Hon'ble Court, the learned advocate who represents the respondent No.2 before the trial Court could not be able to produce those set of documents and pursue the Hon'ble Court in an effective Page 6 of 24 Uploaded by MS.KAJAL KISHORBHAI NAVLAKHA (HCD0076) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 23:16:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17632/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined manner and therefore, the application of cancellation of bail preferred by the State had been allowed and eventually as a consequential effect, non-bailable warrant had been issued against the respondent no.2 therefore, he had challenged said order by way of preferring petition before this Hon'ble Court. He submits that during the pendency of the said petition non-bailable warrant issued by the trial Court had already been executed and respondent no.2 had already been apprehended by Investigating Officer and therefore, the said petition was withdrawn. As respondent no.2 was taken into judicial custody, therefore he preferred the regular bail application, after considering and appreciating all those materials the said bail application allowed by the trial Court. The findings and reasons assigned by the Court are just, fair, reasonable based upon the settled principle of law and as such on record there was no perversity & illegality could be said to have been found out in the operative part of the order and therefore, present application is required to be rejected. He further submits that, in fact, as soon as notice served to respondent no.2 immediately he appeared through Page 7 of 24 Uploaded by MS.KAJAL KISHORBHAI NAVLAKHA (HCD0076) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 23:16:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17632/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined his counsel and filed an undertaking before this Hon'ble Court specifically stating that within a period of 4 months, he will deposit the pending outstanding dues before this Court. and respondent no.2 has deposited Rs.20lakhs but due to certain unforeseen circumstances and due to certain unexpectedly turns of events came in his life, despite his best will and wish to fulfill the condition stated in the undertaking could not be satisfied. He further submits that in fact, during the pendency of the present proceedings ED has come in picture by initiating legal proceedings and due to intervention & involvement of ED proceedings as well as directions of the ED, all his bank assets, bank account, have been frozen and properties have been sealed by the ED and therefore, he could not be able to repay the said amount despite his all possible efforts and therefore, he has brought those facts to the notice of this Hon'ble Court by way of filing an additional affidavit. He further submits that considering the above stated factual aspects, due to some unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances respondent no.2 despite his best efforts, could not be able to pay amount to Page 8 of 24 Uploaded by MS.KAJAL KISHORBHAI NAVLAKHA (HCD0076) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 23:16:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17632/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined the applicant. He submits that respondent no.2 is ready to file an undertaking to the effect that if some further time of breathing period would be granted then he will pay all the dues once the order of attechment of ED could get over.
5. Learned advocate Mr.A.R. Kadri has put reliance upon decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 779 and decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Chauhan Mahendrasinh Udesinh Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2024 (0) AIJEL-HC 249012, and submits that it is the settled proposition of law that to grant the bail of accused is all together different and cancel the bail granted by the Court concerned is altogether different. Considering the above stated proposition of law, this Court may not have to entertain the present cancellation of bail application at this juncture. He submitted that it is the settled proposition of law that once bail granted will not be cancelled only if certain supervening circumstances are brought to the notice of Court, and liberty once granted by way of bail cannot be cancelled as a Page 9 of 24 Uploaded by MS.KAJAL KISHORBHAI NAVLAKHA (HCD0076) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 23:16:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17632/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined matter of course. Considering the above stated factual aspects, the application filed by the applicant is required to be dismissed.
6. Before adverting into the issues involved, in the matter, it is pertinent to note that certain sequence of events of incident occurred in the matter up till now is required to be reproduced so entire picture would be crystallized, it would be easier to understand the factual aspect of the matter, actually what had transpired in the matter up till now.
7. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, the incident occurred on 25.03.2011 and the FIR registered on 03.06.2011, against the 2 persons, pursuant to registration of FIR, investigation commenced, and ultimately the Investigating Officer has submitted chargesheet before the competent Court. It is found out that during the pendency of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a report seeking to add Section 467, then after Investigating Officer concerned has apprehended the present applicant Page 10 of 24 Uploaded by MS.KAJAL KISHORBHAI NAVLAKHA (HCD0076) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 23:16:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17632/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined and he was taken into judicial custody therefore, he preferred a bail application before the trial Court, and on 20.09.2012, this Hon'ble Court released the applicant on bail, by imposing certain terms and conditions. The operative part of the said order is reproduced herein below:-
"Hence, the applicant in both these applications is ordered to be released on bail in connection with Crime Register Nos.I-16 of 2011 and 19 of 2011 respectively registered with DBC Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offences alleged against him in these applications on his executing a bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twentyfive thousand only) each with one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall -
a) make payment of remaining 80% to depositors as undertaken as under:
i) First installment of 20% between 20th October, 2012 and 31st October, 2012;
ii) Second installment of 20% between 20 th November, 2012 and 30th November, 2012;
iii) Third installment of 20% between 20 th December, 2012 and 31st December, 2012;
iv) Fourth and last installment of 20% between 20 th Page 11 of 24 Uploaded by MS.KAJAL KISHORBHAI NAVLAKHA (HCD0076) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 23:16:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17632/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined January, 2013 and 31stJanuary, 2013;
A) grace period of ten days is given to the applicant to make the aforesaid installments. Failing to make payments as stated above within the grace time granted by this Court will automatically treat the bail granted by this Court vide this order as cancelled.
b) make payments to all other concerned depositors, who invested money in the companies of the applicant, on being approached, although they are not shown as witnesses, within the time period in four installments as stated at (a) above, failing which, this bail order shall stand cancelled;
c) not take undue advantage of his liberty or abuse his liberty;
d) not to try to tamper or pressurise the prosecution witnesses or complainant in any manner;
e) maintain law and order and should cooperate the Investigating Officer,
f) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution,
g) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;
h) furnish the address of his residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court with documentary proof of residence at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court; Page 12 of 24 Uploaded by MS.KAJAL KISHORBHAI NAVLAKHA (HCD0076) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 23:16:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17632/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined
i) surrender his passport, if any, to the lower Court within a week.
If the breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the concerned Court will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter."
As respondent no.2 had allegedly failed to comply with the terms and conditions imposed by the Hon'ble High Court on stricto sensu manner therefore, an application for cancellation of bail was filed on 28.01.2013, wherein notice was issued to the applicant, and after providing full opportunity of hearing, to the parties and considering the material available on record the Metropolitan Magistrate, had entertained the application preferred by the applicant state by canceling the bail of respondent no.2 vide order dated 01.02.2013.
As respondent no.2 intends to challenge the said order by way of preferring revision application before the competent Court, and the said application was partly allowed, and stay upon the said order is extended till 28.01.2013. However, as respondent no.2 fails to obtain any order of stay from the Page 13 of 24 Uploaded by MS.KAJAL KISHORBHAI NAVLAKHA (HCD0076) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 23:16:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17632/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined Higher Authority therefore, as consequential fact the Court concerned had issued non-bailable warrant against the applicant, the said non-bailable warrant had not been duly served to the respondent no.2 as he was not found available. Then after in the year 2018 he had preferred a petition before this Hon'ble Court, for granting relief of bail from this Court wherein, this Court had given specific directions to the Investigating Authority concerned to look in the matter and take strick action against the applicant and during the pendency of the said petition respondent no.2 had been arrested by the Investigating Officer therefore, the said petition had become infructouse and ultimately withdrawn by the respondent no.2.
8. If it is manifestly found out that the Court does not advert to the relevant consideration of the principle of bail laid down by the Hon'ble Court time and again and mechanically grants the bail against the material available on record then the said order would suffered from the vice of non application of mind, rendering it to be illegal. At this juncture I would like to place reliance upon and referred Page 14 of 24 Uploaded by MS.KAJAL KISHORBHAI NAVLAKHA (HCD0076) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 23:16:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17632/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kundan Singh vs. The Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise reported in SC CRLOP No.14718/2025, wherein more particularly paragraph nos.8, 9 and 10 which are reproduced as under:
"8. There cannot be any dispute that excessive bail is no bail and onerous conditions ought not to be imposed while bail is granted. As to what is an onerous condition would no doubt depend on the facts and circumstances of the individual case. What is troubling however, is when attempts are made to foreclose consideration of bail application on merits by voluntarily offering deposits of amounts and thereafter reneging on it by stating that a counsel had no authority and/or that the condition is onerous.
9. We are not able to countenance this practice. Even in this case the argument is that the counsel has no authority to offer monetary deposit, when in the modification application no such averment was made and all that was averred was that the amount of Rs.50,00,000/-, as directed, be also deferred to the point after the release of the petitioner.
10. We strongly deprecate this practice. If the offer for monetary deposit had not been made, at the outset, the High Court may have considered the case on merits and may have granted or may not have granted relief to the petitioner. Today the petitioner is approbating and reprobating. We are conscious of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but we have to be equally conscious of the sanctity of the judicial process and cannot allow parties to play ducks and drakes with the Court. In this scenario, the only conclusion possible is that both, the original bail order of 08.05.2025 and the order of modification dated 14.05.2025 granting final relief, will have to be set aside and the matter be remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits uninfluenced by any of the observations of this Court."Page 15 of 24 Uploaded by MS.KAJAL KISHORBHAI NAVLAKHA (HCD0076) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 23:16:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17632/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined
9. It is also well settled proposition of law that at the time of considering the bail application if the relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration have not been taken note of or if it is founded on irrelevant consideration in that event indisputably the superior Court can set aside the order. At this juncture I would like to put reliance upon the certain observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepk Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr. reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein more particularly paragraph nos.33 to 36 which are reproduced as under:
"33. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances. This Court certainly has the inherent powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused even in the absence of supervening circumstances. Following are the illustrative circumstances where the bail can be cancelled :-
a) Where the court granting bail takes into account irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial nature while ignoring relevant material on record.
b) Where the court granting bail overlooks the influential position of the accused in comparison to the victim of abuse or the witnesses especially when there is prima facie misuse of position and power over the victim.
c) Where the past criminal record and conduct of the accused is completely ignored while granting bail.
d) Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds. Page 16 of 24 Uploaded by MS.KAJAL KISHORBHAI NAVLAKHA (HCD0076) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 23:16:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17632/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined
e) Where serious discrepancies are found in the order granting bail thereby causing prejudice to justice.
f) Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the first place given the very serious nature of the charges against the accused which disentitles him for bail and thus cannot be justified.
g) When the order granting bail is apparently whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the given case.
34. In Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another 18, the accused was granted bail by the High Court. In an appeal against the order of the High Court, a two-Judge Bench of this Court examined the precedents on the principles that guide grant of bail and observed as under :-
"12...It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail and have not been taken note of bail or it is founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to a different category and is in a separate realm. While dealing with a case of second nature, the Court does not dwell upon the violation of conditions by the accused or the supervening circumstances that have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the justifiability and the soundness of the order passed by the Court"
35. This Court in Mahipal (Supra) held that: -
"17. Where a court considering an application for bail fails to consider relevant factors, an appellate court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail. An appellate court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non-application of mind or is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record. It is thus necessary for this Court to assess whether, on the basis of the evidentiary record, there existed a prima facie or Page 17 of 24 Uploaded by MS.KAJAL KISHORBHAI NAVLAKHA (HCD0076) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 23:16:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17632/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the crime, also taking into account the seriousness of the crime and the severity of the punishment."
36. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Prakash Kadam And Others Vs. Ram Prasad Vishwanath Gupta And Another19 held that:-
"18. In considering whether to cancel the bail, the court has also to consider the gravity and nature of the offence, prima facie case against the accused, the position and standing of the accused, etc. if there are serious allegations against the accused, his bail may be cancelled even if he has not misused the bail granted to him.
19. In our opinion, there is no absolute rule that once bail is granted to the accused then it can only be cancelled if there is likelihood of misuse of bail. that factor, though no doubt important, is not the only factor. There are several other factors also which may be seen while deciding to cancel the bail."
10. Heard learned advocate of the respective parties and perused the material available on record it is found out that until 2019, respondent no.2 was not traceable. However, on 14.04.2019 respondent no.2 was apprehended by the Navrangpura Police Station, and he was produced before the Magistrate, following which he was taken into judicial custody. Consequently, he preferred a bail application on 17.05.2019, which was entertained by the concerned Court on 04.06.2019. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Page 18 of 24 Uploaded by MS.KAJAL KISHORBHAI NAVLAKHA (HCD0076) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 23:16:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17632/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined City Civil and Sessions Court, applicant has preferred present application. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the bail application of respondent no.2 entertained by the trial Court prima facie seems to be based upon a wrong belief and misconception of the facts, contrary to the documentary evidences/material available on record. Hence, the reasons assigned by the learned Judge for releasing the applicant are against the material/evidence available on record. It is also on record that during the pendency of these proceedings, notice issued by this Hon'ble Court has duly served on respondent no.2, who has filed his appearance through his advocate and submitted an undertaking before this Court on 15.06.2022. The aspects of the under taking are as under:-
"1. That pursuant to order dated 13-06-2022 passed by the Hon. High Court with regards to Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 17632/2019. I, Respondent No.2 is ready and willing to abide by the direction of the Hon. Court order dated 20-09-2012 and I would complete required legal procedures to make appropriate payment to the applicant and for that purpose I would need at least 4 (Four) months time. I am assuring that I would make all the Page 19 of 24 Uploaded by MS.KAJAL KISHORBHAI NAVLAKHA (HCD0076) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 23:16:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17632/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined possible efforts to clear the payment of applicant within that 4 months time.
2. I state and submit that all the company assets are at present attached by Enforcement Directorate under Prevention of Money Laundering Act and other concerned agencies. Moreover there is also attachment of Income Tax Department. I state that to clear and resolve all above legal issues pending against the company in time.
Hon. Court may reserve liberty in favour of Respondent No.2 to make application for extension of time for further 2 months, if needed to resolve the legal issues pending against the company."
It is found out from the aspects that, respondent no.2 undertook to refund the amount to the applicant and other investors of the company within four months from the date of filing undertaking, as directed by this Hon'ble Court. However, when the matter was called out, the learned advocate appears for the respondent no.2 Mr.A.R. Kadri, submitted that, respondent no.2 is ready and willing to fulfill the terms and conditions mentioned in the undertaking in stricto sensu manner but due to certain unforeseen circumstances, he could not be able to deposit the said amount. The Enforcement Directorate had attached Page 20 of 24 Uploaded by MS.KAJAL KISHORBHAI NAVLAKHA (HCD0076) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 23:16:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17632/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined his property, therefore, he could not repay the amount, but if sufficient time will be extended in his favour therefore, he is ready to comply with the said condition.
11. On the strength of the above stated sequence of events, it appears that the incident occurred in the year 2011, and respondent no.2 was released on certain conditions by this Court based upon his undertaking. However, he failed to fulfill the conditions, leading to an application for cancellation of bail and issuance of a non-bailable warrant against him. It appears that the Court concerned exercise of discretionary power is based on incorrect factual aspects, necessitating judicial intervention. The applicant had challenged the order, and respondent no.2 appeared through his advocate, undertaking to settle the account with investors within a period of four months. However, despite this undertaking, not a single penny has been paid by the respondent no.2. It is found out that the act, conduct, approach, behavior and attitude of respondent no.2 itself demonstrate that he does not have any regard upon his own wordings and undertaking filed before this Page 21 of 24 Uploaded by MS.KAJAL KISHORBHAI NAVLAKHA (HCD0076) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 23:16:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17632/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined Court. It is matter of fact on record that respondent no.2 had invited the said order by filing an undertaking before the Hon'ble Court and said fact clearly found out from the operative part of order, he himself has invited the said order before this Hon'ble Court by way of filing an undertaking and therefore, duties casted on the head of the respondent to fulfill the conditions imposed by the Hon'ble Court with all regards religiously. It is found out from the record that respondent no.2 herein had consistently failed to fulfill the terms and conditions, having filed undertaking before this Hon'ble Court twice and misused the liberty extended in his favour. It appears that, his behavior indicates a lack of respect towards the institution and his own commitment. and he used to file undertakings and then after under one or other pretexts he used to adopt dilatory tackticks and/or unfortunately, up till now he succeeded attempts. It appears from the above stated chequered history as well as factual aspects of the matter, it is imperative for this Court to take a strick view, against the respondent no.2 by not extending any further undue sympathy and leniency in the favour of Page 22 of 24 Uploaded by MS.KAJAL KISHORBHAI NAVLAKHA (HCD0076) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 23:16:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17632/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined the person who had shown total disregards and disrespects tot the order of this Court. Considering the above stated totality of the facts, this Court is of the opinion that this is the fit case wherein the bail application granted by the trial court is required to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present application. It considered that the reasons assigned by the Court at the time of entertaining the application are against the evidence/material available on record and foundation of the base of reasoning is incorrect and based upon false premise even after lapse of this much years, that respondent no.2 herein has complied with the terms and conditions imposed by this Hon'ble Court in strickto sensu manner. It is an admitted position of law that respondent no.2 has not placed any documents before this Hon'ble Court to demonstrate compliance. Moreover, despite filing undertaking to comply with the terms and conditions and pay the amount within four months, he has failed to do so. This undertaking itself crystallizes the position of law very clear that, in fact, after obtaining order from this Court in the year 2013 respondent no.2 herein had not tried to Page 23 of 24 Uploaded by MS.KAJAL KISHORBHAI NAVLAKHA (HCD0076) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 23:16:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17632/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined complied with the said order. Therefore, this is a fit case wherein the order passed by the trial Court is required to be set aside by allowing the present application the trial Court is directed to initiate appropriate proceedings to arrest the applicant by issuing non-bailable warrant against him.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) KKN Page 24 of 24 Uploaded by MS.KAJAL KISHORBHAI NAVLAKHA (HCD0076) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 23:16:47 IST 2025