Gujarat High Court
Pradyumansinh Shivubha Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat on 24 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/9675/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
9675 of 2021
==========================================================
PRADYUMANSINH SHIVUBHA JADEJA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS TEJAL A VASHI(2704) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
D H KANTHARIYA(7505) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5
MR. HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 24/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By this application under section 483(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant-original complainant has prayed for the following reliefs;
"(A) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction by exercising the writ jurisdiction and also the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the Learned 3 rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhuj, Kutch dated 27.08.2021 passed in CRMA 894 of 2021 and thereby be pleased to cancel the bail granted to the respondent nos.2 to 5 vide impugned order, which is annexed vide Annexure-B to this petition, and direct the investigating officer to take the accused in custody.
(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Honourable Court may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order passed by the Learned 3 rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhu, Kutch dated 27.08.2021 in CRMA 894 of 2021, and thereby be pleased to direct the investigating officer to arrest the respondent nos.2 to 5;Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 22:23:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9675/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined (C ) Grant any other relief or pass any other order for the benefit of the petitioner which the Honourable Court may deem as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present application are that the petitioner-original complainant is working as revenue liasoning officer of the company and named as Ashapura Perfoclay Ltd since last 3 years and is required to get various permissions and assessments done from various authorities and also to do other works as directed by the company. The petitioner-original complainant was approached by the original accused No.2-Amritlal and original accused No.3-Ravjibhai on behalf of the original accused No.1- Kankuben for payment of bribe amount of Rs.1 Crore to withdraw the various complaints filed against the Ashapura Perfoclay Ltd and also for the purposes of the application made by the said company for getting various permissions and assessment from the Kukma Gram Panchayat regarding works of the company. By conceding to this illegal demand of the bribery, on account of harassment, threats and torture meted out to the Company, the petitioner unwillingly paid Rs.25 Lakhs as a part of initial payment of Rs.1 Crore bribe. Again, the original accused Nos.2 and 3 approached the informant illegally demanding Rs.30 Lakhs as a bribe to get construction approval and demanded 4 trucks and job for their sons in the company. Also, the original accused No.1 communicated to the petitioner through original accused Nos.2 and 3 that the petitioner has to first pay Rs.5 Lakhs out of this total 30 Lakhs bribe amount as a legal fees required to pay to lawyer representing before the tribunal at Delhi. Hence, the petitioner, Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 22:23:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9675/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined left with no other option, conceded to this illegal demand of the original accused No.1,2, and 3 and paid Rs.1 lakh to the original accused No.1 and petitioner informed original accused Nos.1 and 2 to pay remaining 4 Lakhs as soon as possible. The petitioner on the instructions of the company, not willing to contribute in this illegal activity of bribing public officers for doing their duties, informed the ACB Police on 11.05.2021, about the illegal demand made by the respondents, with proofs in the nature of video and audio recordings. The ACB Police had laid a tap in the presence of the two Panch witnesses to catch the accused red-handed while receiving remaining Rs.4 Lakh bribe amount on 12.05.2021 but due to some reason the accused did not come to receive that remaining amount as a result trap failed. Again on 03.08.2021, the accused No.3 had called petitioner to come to the Shilp Gram hotel situated at Kukma road and to pay the remaining Rs.4 Lakhs bribe amount in the presence of the accused No.2. Again, on 12.08.2021, accused No.3 informed the petitioner that they, i.e, accused Nos.2 and 3 would come to the Bhuj to collect remaining Rs.4 lakh bribe out of the total Rs.5 Lakhs demanded by the accused Nos.1 and 2. Then, on 12.08.2021, the petitioner approached the ACB Police station to get this information registered. The ACB Police again laid the trap to catch the accused while receiving the bribe. In this attempt, the police succeeded in apprehending the accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 while demanding and receiving Rs.4 Lakh bribe from the petitioner in the presence of the government witnesses, and the trap was successful. It is the accused No.4 who has accepted the amount of bribe on behalf of other accused and Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 22:23:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9675/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined got trapped. It is in this fashion the accused have committed the offences as enumerated in the FIR.
2.1 After the registration of the FIR, the respondents-accused came to be arrested and sent to the judicial custody.
2.2 Therefore, they preferred regular bail application before charge-sheet before the Sessions Court at Bhuj-Kutch being Criminal Misc. Application No.894 of 2021, which was strongly opposed by the complainant by filing objections as also by the investigating officer by filing an affidavit at Exh.8.
2.3 Thereafter, vide the impugned order dated 27.08.2021, the respondents-accused were enlarged on regular bail by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhuj-Kutch, being aggrieved with which, the original complainant is here before this Court with the present application, seeking cancellation of bail.
3. Learned advocate Ms. Tejal Vashi appearing for the original complainant, submitted that the order passed by the trial court is absolutely against the cardinal principles of grant of bail, and the the trial court has failed to appreciate the seriousness of the offence committed by the accused persons and the fact that the accused persons were caught red-handed by accepting the bribe and, therefore, bail granted to the respondents-accused deserves to be cancelled. She submitted that the impugned order is also against the weight of evidence and material produced before the trial court and is passed without appreciating the objections raised by the IO and the petitioner-original complainant, and therefore also, the bail granted to the respondents-accused deserves to be cancelled.
Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 22:23:38 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9675/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined Learned advocate Ms. Vashi further submitted that the learned trial court has miserably failed in not taking into considration the antecedents of the accused persons and has granted bail to them without application of mind. She submitted that the accused Nos.1 to 3 have tainted history and character of corruptions and past antecedents of bribery from various persons while misusing the public office for personal gratification. She submitted that the accused No.1 is the Sarpanch of the Kukma Gram Panchayat and also the accused No.2 is the member of the Gram Panchayat and also a chairman of social justice committee of the Panchayat, and therefore, being in a position of influence and wielding enormous powers relating to the licensing, leasing and various approvals, they may create illegal hindrances and impediments against the petitioner and the Ashapura Perfoclay Ltd in doing there commercial activities and looking to their antecedents is very likely to repeat the very same offence. Learned advocate Ms. Vashi also submitted that by enlarging the accused on regular bail, the learned trial court has committed an error by neglecting the nature of the offence, position of influence enjoyed by the accused, scale of the bribery and the past antecedents of the accused. These are the essential factors that could have been taken into consideration while granting regular bail, as time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the various high courts have reiterated the said principles.
4. Learned advocate Ms. Vashi further submitted that the offence alleged against the accused is of very grave nature Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 22:23:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9675/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined and being a white colour crime, the enlargement on bail may have serious ramifications on the revenue of the State and this may encourage them to run parallel economy of corruption. She also submitted that the illegal use of public office by the accused necessitates the stricter approach during investigation and remaining of the trial and, therefore, the cancellation of the bail would serve the purpose of justice and fair and impartial trail. Thus, it clearly appears that the learned trial court, in a very casual manner, granted bail to the respondents-accused without taking into consideration the relevant aspects of the matter as well as the seriousness of the crime as also the menace of corruption being made by the officers while sitting in the government offices. Learned advocate Ms. Vashi further submitted that the accused persons were caught red-handed while accepting the bribe, and as such, the order passed by the learned trial court, granting bail to the respondents-accused, is not only illegal but also perverse and is based on irrelevant consideration, and therefore, the same is required to be set aside. Learned advocate Ms. Vashi submitted that the respondents-accused are the habitual offenders in commiting such kind of offences, and there past antecendents against the respondents-accused of the similar nature.
5. Learned advocate Ms. Vashi also submitted that the object underlying for cancellation of bail is to protect fair trial and secure justice done to the society by preventing the accused who is set at liberty, and where there is possibility of hampering or tampering with the prosecution witnesses, the Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 22:23:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9675/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined bail can be cancelled. Here in the case on hand, the respondents-accused are holding the post of Sarpanch and are the members and chairman of the Gram Panchayat, and therefore, there are all possible chances that they may hamper or tamper with the prosecution witnesses/evidences. She submitted that the impugned order of bail is almost like a judgment of acquittal ignoring relevant aspects and principles as regards grant of bail in an offence of corruption. Thus, it has been submitted that the bail granted in favour of the respondents-accused deserves to be cancelled.
6. On the other hand, the present application has been vehemently opposed by learned advocate Mr. D.H. Kanthariya appearing for the respondents-accused. He submitted that no error, not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the learned Sessions Judge while enlarging the respondents-accused on bail. He submitted that, in fact, the respondent No.2 is the Sarpanch of Kukama Juth Gram Panchayat, the respondent No.3 is the wife of the respondent no.2 and is also a member of the said Gram Panchayat and the respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the relatives of the respondent No.2. He further submitted that the FIR which came to be filed against the respondents-accused is nothing but a counterblast to numerous legal proceedings initiated by the respondents- accused against the Company of the present applicant as it was causing environmental pollution in the region of Kutch, more particularly, in village Ler, and keeping grudge of the same, the respondents-accused have been falsely implicated in the present offence. Learned advocate Mr. Kanthariya Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 22:23:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9675/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined further submitted that even the present petitioner does not have the clean history, and he has involved in the criminal offences pertaining to mining royalty, for which, an FIR also came to be registered against him before the Mandvi Police Station under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 etc. of IPC. Learned advocate Mr. Kanthariya further submitted that no concrete evidence or material has been collected by the investigating officer or produced before the court, establishing nexus between the respondents-accused and the commission of the crime, and the learned Sessions Judge, after considering and appreciating all those materials placed on record, has rightly passed the impugned order, releasing the respondents- accused on bail. Learned advocate Mr. Kanthariya submitted that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, being just, legal and proper, does not require any interference.
7. The learned APP appearing for the State has also objected the present application with a vehemence. He submitted that, no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by the trial court while passing the impugned order, and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court, being just and proper, does not require any interference.
8. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, as also perused the record.
9. The case on hand pertains to cancellation of bail granted to the accused, and according to me, in an application for cancellation of bail, the conduct subsequent to release on bail Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 22:23:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9675/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined and the supervening circumstances are the relevant factors to be kept in mind while deciding the cancellation of bail application. It is no doubt true that the error being committed by the learned trial judge as well as the non-consideration of relevant aspects while setting the accused at liberty are also the relevant factors to be borne in mind at the time of deciding cancellation of bail application, still the same do not have much significance, on the basis of which, the order granting bail to the accused can be reversed, as the same may be taken into consideration and determined during the course of trial. The consideration of cancellation of bail is different from the consideration for grant of bail, and the bail can be cancelled only on existence of cogent and overwhelming circumstances, but not on re-appreciation of the facts of the case. It is a settled law that cancellation of bail should not be by way of punishment even if prima facie case against the accused is established.
10. I have also gone through the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, and it appears from the same that all the relevant aspects germane to the grant of bail have been considered by the Sessions Judge and, therefore, the discretion exercised could not be said to be perverse or illegal in any manner.
11. I have also gone through the averments made in the application. It appears from the same that, the cancellation is sought for on the ground that some relevant aspects were not taken into consideration by the learned trial judge while enlarging the accused on bail. It is the case of the complainant Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 22:23:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9675/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined that the respondents-accused made a demand of illegal gratification from the petitioner and subsequently accepted the same while opposing the bail application before the trial court. However, it appears from the impugned judgment that neither the learned advocate for the complainant nor the investigating officer had brought on record any concrete evidence to substantiate the said claim, and even otherwise if the complainant has a strong grievance about non- consideration of relevant aspects, then still the doors are not closed for him to establish the said claim as the trial is still underway.
12. Here, in the case at hand, it is not the case of the complainant that the respondents-accused have breached any of the conditions imposed upon them by the trial court while being released on bail. The respondents-accused are at liberty since August, 2021, i.e. for almost four years, and during this period, not a single incident of non-compliance of the order passed by the trial court is reported against the respondents- accused, or brought on record before this Court. Hence, solely on the ground that some relevant aspects were claimed to have been not taken into consideration by the trial court, the entire order of granting bail to the respondent-accused cannot be vitiated.
13. Moreover, while considering degree of burden of prove lie upon prosecution or complainant/Informant, when an application for cancellation of bail moved, is not to the extent of proving by a mathematical certainty or beyond reasonable doubt but it must establish its case by showing on a Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 22:23:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9675/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined preponderance of probabilities that accused has attempted or may attempt to or tamper or has tampered with witnesses. It may also be proved by test of balance of probabilities that accused has abused his liberty or it may show that there is reasonable apprehension that he will interfere with course of justice. This Court approved Bombay High Court decision in Madhukar Purshottam Jondkar vs. Talab Haji Hussain 60 Bombay Law Reporter 465 that test adopted by the Court would be, whether material placed before it is such as to lead to the conclusion that there is a strong prima facie case that accused if allowed to be at large he would tamper with prosecution witnesses and impede course of justice. Mere unfounded apprehension or self imagined threat by prosecution or Informant-Complainant would not justify cancellation of bail, granted to accused.
14. In Raghubir Singh vs. State of Bihar (1986) 4 SCC 481, the Court held that grounds for cancellation of bail under Sections 437(5) and 439(2) are identical, namely, bail granted under Section 437(1) or (2) or Section 439(1) can be cancelled where
(i) 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. Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 22:23:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9675/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined
15. It was also held that above grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. Rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order since it interferes with liberty of individual and must not be lightly resorted to.
16. In Dolat Ram and others vs. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349, the Court held that rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at initial stage and cancellation of bail so granted, has to be dealt with and considered on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail, already granted. Court further said that generally speaking grounds of cancellation of bail, broadly i.e. illustrative and not exhaustive are : (i) interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice; (ii) evasion or attempt to evade due course of justice;
(iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner; (iv) Satisfaction of Court, on the basis of material placed on record of possibility of accused absconding.
17. Court also reminded 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 concession of bail during trial.
18. In CBI, Hyderabad vs. Subramani Gopalakrishnan and others (2011) 5 SCC 296, in para 23, Court said :
"....that there is difference between yardstick 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 Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 22:23:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9675/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined 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."
19. Position, influence and resources of accused have also been held relevant factors to adjudge whether accused is likely to interfere with administration of justice, trial or tamper with witness or evidence.
20. Considerations and relevant aspects by a Court while granting a bail are different than those when an application for cancellation of bail has come up before the Court and this aspect has been considered by a three-Judges Bench of Supreme Court in State (Delhi Administration) vs. Sanjay Gandhi (1978) 2 SCC 411 wherein the Bench had an occasion to consider an order dated 11.04.1978 passed by Delhi High Court rejecting Delhi Administration's application for cancellation of bail of respondent Sanjay Gandhi. The Court observed that rejection of bail, when bail applied is one thing; cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 22:23:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9675/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined involves review of a decision already made and can, by and large, be permitted only, if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow accused to retain his freedom during the trial.
21. In X vs. The State of Telangana and Ors. (2018)16 SCC 511, accused, a Film Producer, based in Mumbai, was charged of offences under Sections 376, 342, 493, 506, 354(C) of IPC. Accused got anticipatory bail from Sessions Judge on 13.01.2017 and had advantage of that order for about eight months. The said order was cancelled by Sessions Judge on the ground that accused has not disclosed that he was also accused in 2G Spectrum case. This cancellation order was affirmed by High Court and also by Supreme Court. Thereafter accused moved a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by High Court and accused was released on bail. This order was challenged in appeal before Supreme Court. Upholding the said order, Court said that bail once granted should not be cancelled unless a cogent case, based on supervening event has been made out.
22. In Seema Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. (2018) 16 SCC 10 bail granted to accused by High Court in the case registered under Sections 498-A, 302, 120-B IPC was challenged in appeal before Supreme Court. The Court noticed that accused-2's bail application was rejected by Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ghaziabad and thereafter bail was granted by High Court. The Court said that gravity of offence is a relevant factor but not the sole ground to deny bail if there are other overwhelming circumstances justifying grant of bail.
Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 22:23:38 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9675/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined Noticing special feature, Court upheld order of High Court granting bail.
23. Thus, the broad principles, which are to be considered by this Court while granting bail and when bail is already granted but an application for cancellation has come up for consideration, as discussed above, show that there is no thumb rule in both the situations. However, it is true that factors relevant for grant of bail are different and approach required to be adopted while considering application for cancellation of bail is different.
24. Looking to above exposition of law as also the fact and circumstances of the case, I find that there is no material available on record to show any justification for cancellation of bail after almost four years, and therefore, order of cancellation of bail cannot be justified at this stage.
25. In the result, the present application fails and is hereby rejected. Notice is discharged.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) VAHID Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 22:23:38 IST 2025