Gujarat High Court
Binaben Wd/O Ashokbhai Panchal vs State Of Gujarat on 1 July, 2023
R/CR.MA/9792/2016 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 9792 of 2016
==========================================================
BINABEN WD/O ASHOKBHAI PANCHAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TEJAS M BAROT(2964) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS DHARA M SHAH(5546) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MAITHILI MEHTA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 01/07/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. This application is preferred under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the complainant for cancellation of bail granted to the original accused by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 21.11.2015 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 907 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the offence registered being I.C.R. No.150 of 2015 before Langhnaj Police Station, Mehsana.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant's late husband Ashokbhai Amratlal Panchal was engaged in trade of labour contractor along with his brother Deepakbhai. They both were also got Government work. In connection of the said work, there was a demand of money as Government contract entailed delayed payment in respect of the work.
Page 1 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:38:51 IST 2023R/CR.MA/9792/2016 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2023 Under the circumstances, the Applicant's husband was compelled to borrow money from the market with high rate of interest and therefore, he remained under constant pressure. The Applicant's husband was also telephonically contacted with lenders, who were pressing for their money and interest, of which the Applicant was aware.
2.1 The Applicant's husband had also borrowed some amounts of money from the Respondent no.2. As the Respondent no.2 lent money to the Applicant's husband, the said Respondent no.2 was pressing hard for recovery of his money along with interest.
2.2 On 24.10.2015, husband of the applicant left home in the morning at around 8:00 a.m. under stress and duress. Later on in the afternoon when the Applicant tried to contact her husband, he could not be contacted and therefore, the Applicant called up her brother-in-law viz. Deepkbhai and requested him to look out for her husband. When the Applicant's brother-in-law made inquires in the School at Village Tundali, Ashokbhai's dead body was found hanging in the class room of the said School. The Police authorities consequently came to the scene and started conducting their inquiries. Subsequently, the dead body of deceased Ashokbhai was taken to Mehsana Civil Hospital for the purpose of performing postmortem. After performing the rituals and the cremation, the Applicant was given her husband's mobile instrument by her brother-in-law Deepakbhai. The Applicant was also informed by Deepakbhai that there were many calls Page 2 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:38:51 IST 2023 R/CR.MA/9792/2016 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2023 from particular unknown number and number belongs to respondent No.2, from whom the husband of the applicant had taken loan and who had sent messages to the deceased threatening him. Due to the harassment the deceased had committed suicide.
2.3 Therefore, the wife of the applicant had filed complaint before the Langhnaj Police Station being I.C.R. No. 150 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent No.2.
2.4 In connection with the offence registered against the accused, the accused approached the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Mehsana seeking anticipatory bail. After perusing the record and the evidence placed on record, the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana vide order dated 21.11.2015 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 907 of 2015 granted anticipatory bail to the accused person and therefore, the original complainant has filed present application for cancellation of bail granted to the original accused.
3. Heard Mr. Tejas M. Barot, learned Counsel for the applicant, Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned APP for the respondent No.1 State of Gujarat and Ms. Dhara M. Shah, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 original accused.
4. Mr. Barot learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the impugned order is ex facie illegal and arbitrary and that the same is passed without appreciating the Page 3 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:38:51 IST 2023 R/CR.MA/9792/2016 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2023 facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that considering the allegations and seriousness alleged against the accused persons, learned Sessions Judge ought not have granted anticipatory bail to the accused person. He further submitted that the accused is involved in serious crime and committed offence under Section 306 of IPC and therefore, the application may be allowed and the bail granted to the accused person may be cancelled.
5. As against that the learned APP Ms. Maithili Mehta, for the respondent No.1-State of Gujarat has submitted report dated 1.7.2023 filed by the concerned Investigating Officer of Langhlaj Police Station, wherein the fact reveals that the trial has already commenced and certain witnesses have also been examined. She further submitted that present application is without any merit and since last seven years, it is not further proceeded by the learned Counsel for the applicant and in view of the settled principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court present, present application does not deserve to be entertained and no interference is required to be called for in the order passed by the Trial Court.
6. Ms. Dhara. M. Shah, learned Counsel for the respondent accused has submitted that after releasing the respondent accused on anticipatory bail by the Trial Court, he has not misused his liberty in any manner nor he has breached any condition impose upon him by the Trial Court at the time of granting anticipatory bail. In view of the aforesaid facts, she urges before the Court that present application may not be Page 4 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:38:51 IST 2023 R/CR.MA/9792/2016 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2023 entertained and the same may be dismissed.
7. I have perused the FIR and the impugned order passed by the Trial Court in the application for anticipatory bail. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates appearing on behalf of both the sides and the averments made in the application. It appears from the record that the anticipatory bail was granted in the year 2015 and till today, there is no overwhelming circumstance is reported against the accused person. Further, any breach of the condition imposed by the Trial Court at the time of granting anticipatory bail upon the accused is also not reported. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court has rightly exercised its power under Section 438 of the Code.
8. It must be emphasised at the outset that there is a vivid distinction between the parameters to be applied while considering a bail application, vis a vis those applicable while deciding a petition for its cancellation. In Puran vs. Rambilas reported in (2001) 6 SCC 338, it was reiterated that at the time of deciding an application for bail, it would be necessary to record reasons, albeit without evaluating the evidence on merits. In turn, Puran (supra) cited Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) reported in (1978) 1 SCC 118 wherein this Court observed that bail once granted by the trial Court, could be cancelled by the same Court only in case of new circumstances/evidence, failing which, it would be necessary to approach the Higher Court exercising appellate jurisdiction.
Page 5 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:38:51 IST 2023R/CR.MA/9792/2016 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2023
9. At this stage it is appropriate to take in to account the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Deepak Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559. The said observations read as under:-
"Head Note C. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, -Ss. 439 and 437 - Bail - Cacellation of - Grounds for - Principles summarised.
"30. This Court has reiterated in several instances that bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial. Having said that, in case of cancellation of bail, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail (which was already granted). A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Dolat Ram And Others Vs. State of Haryana 17 laid down the grounds for cancellation of bail which are :-
(i) interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of Justice
(ii) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice
(iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner
(iv) Possibility of accused absconding
(v) Likelihood of/actual misuse of bail
(vi) Likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence or threatening witnesses."
9.1 It would be profitable to refer the judgment of this Court in case of Shree Vikas Co. Op Bank Ltd, (Liq) Through Sunil Laxmanrao Powle Vs. State of Gujarat dated 6.5.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3712 Page 6 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:38:51 IST 2023 R/CR.MA/9792/2016 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2023 of 2018 and allied matters, wherein this Court has held as under:-
"[9] Further apart from that even independent of it the law on the issue of cancellation of bail is well propounded by catena of decisions few of same relevant quoted hereunder:
"(i) In the case of Myakala Dharmarajam & Ors., v. State of Telangana & Anr., reported in (2020) 2 SCC 743, Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 8 held as under:
"8. In Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar2 this Court held that bail can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation,
(iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency,
(vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. The above grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to."
(ii) In the case of Ms. X. vs State of Telangana & Anr., reported in (2018) 16 SCC 511, Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 14, 15 and 18 held as under:
"14. In a consistent line of precedent this Court has emphasised the distinction between the rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail after it has been granted. In adverting to the distinction, a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in Dolatram v State of Haryana observed that:
"4. Rejection of a bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of the bail, already granted, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of Page 7 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:38:51 IST 2023 R/CR.MA/9792/2016 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2023 administration of justice or evasion of attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.
15. These principles have been reiterated by another two Judge Bench decision in Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v Subramani Gopalakrishnan and more recently in Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh:
"23. It is also relevant to note that there is difference between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concessions granted to the accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction of the Court on the basis of the materials placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. In other words, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.
18. For the above reasons, we hold that the order of the High Court allowing the application for bail cannot be faulted. Moreover, no supervening circumstance has been made out to warrant the cancellation of the bail.Page 8 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:38:51 IST 2023
R/CR.MA/9792/2016 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2023 There is no cogent material to indicate that the accused has been guilty of conduct which would warrant his being deprived of his liberty."
(iii) In the case of Manoj Kumar Khokhar v State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in (2022) 3 SCC 501, Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 29 and 38 held as under:
"29. Recently in Bhoopendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1279 of 2021), this Court made observations with respect to the exercise of appellate power to determine whether bail has been granted for valid reasons as distinguished from an application for cancellation of bail. i.e. this Court distinguished between setting aside a perverse order granting bail vis−a−vis cancellation of bail on the ground that the accused has misconducted himself or because of some new facts requiring such cancellation. Quoting Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar − (2020) 2 SCC 118, this Court observed as under:
"16. The considerations that guide the power of an appellate court in assessing the correctness of an order granting bail stand on a different footing from an assessment of an application for the cancellation of bail. The correctness of an order granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of the discretion in the grant of bail. The test is whether the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified. On the other hand, an application for cancellation of bail is generally examined on the anvil of the existence of supervening circumstances or violations of the conditions of bail by a person to whom bail has been granted."
38. Thus, while elaborate reasons may not be assigned for grant of bail or an extensive discussion of the merits of the case may not be undertaken by the court considering a bail application, an order de hors reasoning or bereft of the relevant reasons cannot result in grant of bail. In such a case the prosecution or the informant has a right to assail the order before a higher forum. As noted in Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Admn.) − 1978 CriLJ 129, when bail has been granted to an accused, the State may, if new circumstances have arisen following the grant of such bail, approach the High Court seeking cancellation of bail under section 439 (2) of the Cr. PC. However, if no Page 9 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:38:51 IST 2023 R/CR.MA/9792/2016 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2023 new circumstances have cropped up since the grant of bail, the State may prefer an appeal against the order granting bail, on the ground that the same is perverse or illegal or has been arrived at by ignoring material aspects which establish a prima−facie case against the accused."
9.2 In the decision of this Court in case of Hiteshkumar Vallabhdas Shah Power of Attorney of Pankaj Indravadan Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2021 GLR 4 2874, this Court has held as under:-
"7. In case of Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State of NCT Delhi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph no.32 that, once discretion is exercised by the Sessions Court to grant bail on consideration of relevant materials, the High Court would not normally interfere with such discretion, unless the same suffers from serious infirmities or perversity.
While considering the correctness of the order granting bail, the approach should be whether the order granting bail to the accused is vitiated by any serious infirmity, in which case, the High Court can certainly interfere with the exercise of discretion.
7.1. Dolat Ram Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 1995 SCC(1) 349 relied upon by the learned advocate for the respondent no.2, is a case where anticipatory bail was sought to be cancelled wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para- 4, held as under: "Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of Justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his Page 10 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:38:51 IST 2023 R/CR.MA/9792/2016 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2023 freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted."
7.2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Narendra Amin Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2008 (13) SCC 584, noted that the Court dealing with cancellation application is required to find whether irrelevant material of substantial nature was taken into account or relevant material omitted from consideration while granting bail. If so, order granting bail would be perverse, justifying cancellation, in that context, stand of no supervening circumstances has no relevance in such a case.
7.3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Abdul Basit Alias Raju And Ors. Vs. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary And Another, reported in (2014) 10 Supreme Court Cases 754, held that although the court granting bail can cancel the bail on ground of accused's misconduct or new adverse facts having surfaced after the grant of bail, however, in view of express bar contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C., it cannot review its order as to grant of bail on ground of it being unjustified, illegal or perverse. Such challenge to bail order on ground of it being illegal or contrary to law can be determined only by the court superior to the court which granted bail. The cancellation of bail rides on the satisfaction and discretion of the court under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C., it does not vest the power of review in the court which granted bail.
7.3.1. In Dolat Ram's case (supra), it has been held that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for the canceling bail granted to an accused. As has been held in Narendra Amin's case (supra), the Court is required to examine whether irrelevant material of substantial nature has been taken into account or relevant material has been omitted from consideration while granting bail. In Abdul Basit @ Raju And Ors. (supra), the cancellation of bail was sought for on the grounds that it was obtained by gross misrepresentation of facts, misleading the Court and indulging in fraud, requiring the bail order to be set aside on ground of it being perverse in law. It was observed that circumstances brought on record do not indicate any Page 11 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:38:51 IST 2023 R/CR.MA/9792/2016 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2023 situation where bail was misused by accused, thus was held that cancellation of bail can be granted on ground of accused's misconduct or new adverse facts having surfaced after the grant of bail; and challenge to bail order on ground of it being illegal or contrary to law, can be determined only by the Court superior to the Court which granted bail.
7.4. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bhagirath Singh S/o. Mahipat Singh Judeja Vs. State of Gujarat; reported in AIR 1984 SC 372, that, even where a prima facie case is established, the approach of the court in the matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained by way of punishment but whether the presence of the accused would be readily available for trial or that he is likely to abuse the discretion grained in his favour by tampering with evidence.
7.5. Myakala Dharmarajam & Ors. Etc. Vs. The State of Gujarat, decided on 07.01.2020 in Criminal Appeal Nos.1974- 1975 of 2019, the Hon'ble Apex Court while placing reliance on the case of Kanwar Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in (2012) 12 SCC 180, held that, the factors to be considered while granting bail have been held by this Court to be the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with the evidence and witnesses, and obstructing the course of justice etc. Each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by the Court. The court has to only opine as to whether there is prima facie case against the accused. For the purpose of bail, the Court must not undertake meticulous examination of the evidence collected by the police and comment on the same.
7.6. In case of Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (1986) 4 SCC 481, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, bail can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (viii) attempts to Page 12 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:38:51 IST 2023 R/CR.MA/9792/2016 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2023 place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. The above grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to.
7.7. Cancellation of bail could not be resorted to on the assumption that the applicant - accused was guilty. In Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State of (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, it is held that, the correctness of an order granting bail, can be considered by the appellate or superior court at the behest of the State of investigating agency, and set aside on the ground that the court granting it did not consider material facts or crucial circumstances. This does not amount to "cancellation" in terms of Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. So when the order of bail is found to be erroneous, as material facts and crucial circumstances are ignored, it would be vulnerable subjecting to be set aside."
12. In case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, reported in (2012) (1) SCC 40, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, primary purpose of bail in a Criminal Case is to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping the accused pending trial and at the same time to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court at the time of trial. Merely the offence alleged against the accused is serious one, in terms of huge loss to the State exchequer that itself should not deter the Court from enlarging on bail when there are no serious contentions from the prosecution that if the accused is released on bail, they would interfere with the trial or tamper with the evidence."
9.3 In the decision of this Court in case of Merubhai Ramabhai Kodiyatar (Hun) Rabari Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2021 GLR 2 1175 ,this Court has held as under:-
"6. Learned advocate Mr. Anandjiwala for the petitioner submitted that as the subsequent FIRs were filed against the petitioner, he approached this Court by preferring quashing petition, which came to be withdrawn and therefore he surrendered and preferred bail application in all the Page 13 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:38:51 IST 2023 R/CR.MA/9792/2016 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2023 subsequent offences registered against him. Mr. Anandjiwala stated that due to fear of arrest in the subsequent FIRs, the petitioner could not mark his presence before the police station.
16. Thus in Dolat Ram's case, it has been held that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. In the case of X Vs. State of Telangana, reported in 2018 (16) SCC 511, the Apex Court has held that bail once granted should not be cancelled unless a cogent case based on a supervening event has been made out. It has been observed that second FIR is not a supervening circumstance of such a nature, as would warrant the cancellation of bail, which was granted by the High Court. In the present case, the petitioner was pursuing legal recourse, though he was not marking his presence before the police he was before the Courts seeking bail in the subsequent FIRs that came to be registered against him. He was granted bail by the concerned Court. The police report itself suggests that the matter in which the bail was sought to be cancelled, charge-sheet was already filed, which makes the petitioner answerable to the trial Court."
9.4 In the decision of this Court in case of Arvind Ravji Baradia (Ahir) vs. State of Gujarat dated 21.4.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.8165 of 2016, this Court has held as under:-
"14. The Apex Court, recently in the case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in (2016) 1 SCC 152, has reiterated the principles of grant of anticipatory bail and observed that the gravity of charge and exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended. In opinion of this Court, the learned Judge has rightly exercised the discretion and following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bhagirathsinh Judeja (supra) and Dolat Ram (supra), the present application is misconceived. Similarly, in Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. Subramani Gopalakrishnan & Anr., (2011) 5 SCC 296, the Apex Court has observed thus:-Page 14 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:38:51 IST 2023
R/CR.MA/9792/2016 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2023 "23. It is also relevant to note that there is difference between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted.
Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concessions granted to the accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction of the Court on the basis of the materials placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. In other words, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial."
9.5 In the decision of this Court in case of State of Gujarat vs. Ravi Mepa Chavda dated 1.4.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.9782 of 2015, this Court has held as under:-
"12. The Apex Court, recently in the case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in (2016) 1 SCC 152, has reiterated the principles of grant of anticipatory bail and observed that the gravity of charge and exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended. In opinion of this Court, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly exercised the discretion and following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bhagirathsinh Judeja (supra) and Dolat Ram (supra), the present application is misconceived."
9.6 In the decision of this Court in case of Asha Dharamnarayan Sharma Vs. State of Gujarat dated 12.2.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.20335 of 2015, this Court has held as under:-
"12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the Page 15 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:38:51 IST 2023 R/CR.MA/9792/2016 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2023 case, once the discretion is exercised by this Court while releasing the applicant on bail, liberty of the respondent - accused cannot be taken away and interference with the order of granting bail is very harsh order and in absence of cogent and relevant material, it is not proper for this Court to exercise the powers under Section 439(2) of the Code by cancelling the bail granted in favour of the respondent - accused. I am also in complete agreement with the reasoning given by the learned Sessions Court while dismissing the application filed by the applicant - original complainant."
10. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that so far as the factum of considering the application filed under section 439 (2) of Code for cancellation of bail and granting of bail are concerned, both factors are quite different. Normally in usual circumstance, the Court cannot interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court except in the case of any overwhelming circumstance or any breach of condition or any other special circumstance shown by the applicant.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that now, the trial has already commenced and certain witnesses have also been examined by the Trial, this application does not deserve to be entertained. Hence, I am of the opinion that in the present case, when the respondent original accused has been released on bail and has not committed any breach of conditions imposed by the Court and when there is no overwhelming circumstances, there is no reason to exercise power under Section 439(2) of the Code and cancel the bail granted in favour of the respondent - original accused.
Page 16 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:38:51 IST 2023R/CR.MA/9792/2016 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2023
12. With aforesaid clarifications and observations, present application deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. Notice discharged.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI Page 17 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:38:51 IST 2023