Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Pravin @ Pin Natvarbhai Koli Patel on 27 September, 2021
Author: Vipul M. Pancholi
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
R/CR.MA/6563/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/09/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6563 of 2021
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PRAVIN @ PIN NATVARBHAI KOLI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP(2) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DIPESH D SONI(9996) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 27/09/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. This application is filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`the Code' for short) for quashing and setting aside the order dated 5.2.2021 passed by the learned 5 th Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.64 of 2021 filed by the present respondent-accused for enlarging him on regular bail.
2. Heard learned APP Mr.Dave for the applicant-state and learned advocate Mr.Soni for respondent-accused.
3. Learned APP has mainly contended that FIR being C.R.No.11200011201984 of 2020 was registered with Valsad Rural Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under the Prohibition Act and the respondent-accused came to be arrested in connection with the said FIR. Thereafter, respondent-accused filed application under Section 439 of the Code before the concerned Sessions Court. The Sessions Court vide the impugned order enlarged the respondent-accused Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 29 00:46:14 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/6563/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/09/2021 on regular bail and therefore this application is filed for quashing and setting aside the said order and cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent-accused.
4. Learned APP has mainly contended that the respondent- accused has suppressed the fact about the antecedents and though the investigating officer has stated about the same in the affidavit filed before the Sessions Court, the Sessions Court has enlarged the respondent- accused on regular bail. It is submitted that the state has made out prima facie case against the respondent-accused and looking to the antecedents of the respondent-accused, the Sessions Court ought not to have enlarged him on regular bail. It is, therefore, urged that the bail granted to the respondent-accused be cancelled.
5. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent- accused has referred to the reasoning recorded by the learned Sessions Court and contended that the Sessions Court has considered the aspect of the antecedents of the respondent-accused and looking to the facts of the case, the Sessions Court has exercised the discretion in favour of the respondent-accused. It is, therefore, urged that this application be dismissed.
6. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it would emerge that FIR being C.R.No.11200011201984 of 2020 has been filed against the concerned accused on 18.10.2020 and the respondent-accused came to be arrested in connection with the said FIR. Later on, by the impugned order, the respondent-accused has been released on regular bail. It is also pertinent to note that the state has challenged the order passed by the Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 29 00:46:14 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/6563/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/09/2021 Sessions Court mainly on merits and not on the ground that respondent- accused has violated the condition of bail.
7. The Sessions Court has considered the antecedents of the present respondent-accused and thereafter exercised the discretion in favour of the respondent-accused. It is not the case of the prosecution that if the respondent-accused is released on bail, he will tamper with the evidence or he will not be available at the time of trial.
8. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer to the case of Dolat Ram vs State Of Haryana reported in 1995 SCC (1) 349, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observation :
"4. 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 freedom by enjoying the concession Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 29 00:46:14 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/6563/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/09/2021 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 nonbailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted."
Keeping in view the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the facts of the present case are carefully examined, this Court is of the view that the state has failed to point out any cogent and over- whelming circumstance for cancellation of bail granted by the Sessions Court to the respondent accused.
9. I have gone through the reasoning recorded by the Sessions Court while enlarging the respondent accused on bail and in the facts of the present case, when the Sessions Court has exercised the discretion in favour of the respondent-accused after considering the antecedents of the present respondent-accused and it is not the case of the prosecution that if the respondent-accused is released on bail, he will tamper with the evidence or he will not be available at the time of trial, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J) SRILATHA Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 29 00:46:14 IST 2021