Gujarat High Court
Xaviers High School Loyola Hall Thro ... vs State Of Gujarat on 25 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22941/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL)
NO. 22941 of 2024
==========================================================
XAVIERs HIGH SCHOOL LOYOLA HALL THRO XAVIER AMALRAJ
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ABHIJEET J SINGH(12073) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SM DERASARI(5321) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR AKSHAY MATANI for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 25/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni and learned advocate Mr. Akshay Matani waive service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1 - State and respondent No.2
- original accused, respectively.
2. By way of present application, applicant has sought for following relief "(A) Your Lordships be pleased to cancel the regular bail granted to the respondent no.2 vide order dated 28.2.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.742 of 2023 in the interest of justice;
(B) Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to surrender, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:26:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/22941/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined application;
(C) Your Lordships be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as deemed fit in the interest of justice;"
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Derasari for the applicant, learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni for the respondent No.1 - State and learned advocate Mr. Akshay Matani for the respondent No.2 - original accused.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Derasari submits that in fact one FIR is registered by the applicant against two accused persons. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, investigation commenced and both the accused persons were apprehended by the investigating officer concerned. Thereafter, both the accused persons approached before the learned Trial Court for getting bail and said application was not entertained by the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 approached before this Court by way of preferring an application seeking bail. At that relevant point of time, the learned advocate, who represented the respondent No.2, has made a statement before the Coordinate Bench of this Court to the effect that respondent No.2 has volunteered to deposit Rs.2 crores before the learned Trial Court. Thus, considering the aforesaid statement made by learned advocate of the respondent No.2, the Coordinate Bench of this Court granted regular bail to the respondent Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:26:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/22941/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined No.2 vide order dated 28.02.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.742 of 2023 by imposing certain terms and conditions. The condition No.5(f) provides as under:
"(f) shall deposit Rs.1 crore (Rupees one crore only) before the Trial Court within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of actual release and remaining amount of Rs.1 crore (Rupees one crore only) be deposited within subsequent one month, in failure, the complainant can approach this Court for cancellation of bail."
5. Learned advocate for the applicant further submits that after release of the respondent No.2 on bail, he has not deposited a single penny before the learned Trial Court and thereby he has committed breach of the condition of bail granted by this Court. He further submits that while imposing aforesaid condition, it is the specific observation of this Court that in case of failure to make the deposit of the aforesaid amount by the respondent No.2, it will be open for the complainant to prefer an application for cancellation of bail before this Court. He further submits that thereafter, applicant preferred an application for modification of the aforesaid condition. However, the said application has been rejected by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.02.2024. Thereafter, once again an application for modification of the aforesaid condition has been preferred, which was Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:26:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/22941/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined also rejected by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Application (Modification/Deletion of Condition) No.1 of 2024 in Criminal Misc. Application No.742 of 2023, specifically observing that taking into consideration the aforesaid discussion as also the conduct of the applicant and when an opportunity was granted to him to deposit the amount and when he has failed to do so, this Court finds no cogent reason to entertain the present application and hence, the same is rejected. Thus, the Court has also taken note of the conduct of the respondent No.2 from which it is found out that there was no intention on the part of respondent No.2 to deposit the aforesaid amount and only to get favourable order from this Court, he has made a false statement. He further submits that in fact applicant - complainant has filed an application for cancellation of bail before the learned Trial Court. However, the said application has not been entertained by the learned Trial Court, despite clear cut breach of condition of bail committed by the respondent No.2. The learned Trial Court has adopted technical view at the time of entertaining the cancellation of bail application, specifically stating that the condition is imposed by the Hon'ble High Court and therefore the concerned Court would not have got jurisdiction to entertain the said application and applicant has to approach to this Court. The said view adopted by the learned Sessions Court is erroneous one and against the settled Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:26:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/22941/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined proposition of law, unjust, unfair and perverse. Therefore, the said view adopted by the learned Trial Court is required to be turned down by allowing present application and cancelling the bail granted to the respondent No.2 solely on the count that deliberately he has committed breach of the condition of bail. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate for the applicant has put reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kundan Singh v. The Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise rendered in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9111 of 2025.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Akshay Matani appearing for respondent No.2 - original accused has submitted that in fact FIR is registered against total two persons and as per the directions issued by this Court, the respondent No.2 has to deposit Rs.2 crore before the learned Trial Court within the prescribed time, whereas, wife of the respondent No.2, who happens to be the co-accused, has to deposit Rs.20 lakh upon their release from the judicial custody. The wife of the respondent No.2 has already deposited a sum of Rs.20 lakh before the learned Trial Court. He has referred certain charge-sheet papers and submitted that role of the applicant is very limited and the report submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory along with the charge-sheet papers clearly goes on to show the involvement of other co-accused persons. However, the respondent No.2 has falsely been dragged Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:26:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/22941/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined into the criminal prosecution. He further submits that learned advocate, who was representing the respondent No.2, has made a statement before this Court without taking the respondent No.2 in confidence as at that relevant point of time the respondent No.2 was in judicial custody. He further submits that financial condition of the respondent No.2 is not such that despite his best efforts, he could be able to fulfill the said condition. Therefore, an application is preferred to delete the said condition. The said application has not been entertained by this Court. The said order is also challenged by the respondent No.2 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and those proceedings are pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court and therefore unless and until the said proceedings are to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court may not have to entertain present application. He, therefore, submits that present application is required to be dismissed.
7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials placed on record, it is found out that present application is filed for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 - original accused on the ground of breach of condition imposed by this Court while enlarging the respondent No.2 on regular bail. Before delving into the issue involved in the present matter, I would like to reproduce certain sequence of events. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR by Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:26:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/22941/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined the applicant against the accused persons, investigation commenced and respondent No.2 and other accused person have been apprehended by the investigating officer. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 herein preferred an application seeking regular bail before this Court. The said application came to be granted by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.02.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.742 of 2023. In para 3 of the said order, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under:
"3. Mr. Mansuri further states that the applicant has volunteered to deposit Rs.2 crores before the Trial Court."
8. In view of the aforesaid statement made by learned advocate for the respondent No.2 herein, respondent No.2 has been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court by imposing certain terms and condition. The condition No.5(f) provides as under:
"(f) shall deposit Rs.1 crore (Rupees one crore only) before the Trial Court within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of actual release and remaining amount of Rs.1 crore (Rupees one crore only) be deposited within subsequent one month, in failure, the complainant can approach this Court for cancellation of bail."
9. Thus, in view of the aforesaid condition, Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:26:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/22941/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined respondent No.2 herein shall have to deposit rupees one crore before the learned Trial Court within a period of 15 days and remaining amount of rupees one crore shall have to be paid within a period of one month thereafter. It is also pertinent to note that while imposing the aforesaid condition, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has specifically observed that in the event of failure on the part of the respondent No.2 to make the aforesaid payment, in that event, it is open for the applicant herein to approach this Court for cancellation of bail. It is also found out from the record that after releasing from jail, respondent No.2 herein has not deposited a single penny before the learned Trial Court and he has committed breach of the aforesaid condition. Thereafter, after lapse of some time, respondent No.2 herein had preferred an application for modification/ deletion of aforesaid condition, which was not entertained by this Court. Thereafter, once again, respondent No.2 has preferred similar kind of application seeking modification/deletion of aforesaid condition. The said application has also been dismissed by this Court, wherein, this Court has also made reference of conduct of the respondent No.2 herein. It is the case of the respondent No.2 herein that the said order is challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the said proceedings are still pending and therefore, till the said proceedings are decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court may have to defer the hearing of present proceedings. The said Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:26:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/22941/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined contention is misconceived, inasmuch as the said proceedings arise out of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of deletion/modification of condition of bail and present application is filed for cancellation of bail of respondent No.2 for breach of condition of bail imposed by this Court. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, both the proceedings are different and distinct. It is pertinent to note that in spite of the fact that the application preferred by the respondent No.2 for modification/deletion of the aforesaid condition of bail has been dismissed by this Court and the said order has not been stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the respondent No.2 has not deposited a single penny and under the pretext of a false statement and playing with the Court of law, he is enjoying his liberty, which is required to be viewed seriously by this Court.
10. It is also pertinent to note that the learned advocate Mr. Matani for the respondent No.2 has tried to stretch the proceedings of the present matter to the effect that learned advocate, who was representing the respondent No.2, has made statement before this court without taking him in confidence. Therefore, a pertinent query was being asked to him that whether the respondent No.2 has issued any notice to the advocate, whether any prosecution is launched against the learned advocate and whether any explanation is sought from the concerned advocate, to Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:26:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/22941/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined which, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has fairly conceded that no action is being taken by the respondent No.2 against the said advocate. Learned advocate has fairly conceded that no material is available with him to substantiate the aforesaid claim.
11. Now, I would like to rely and refer the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kundan Singh (supra), wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed and held 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 Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:26:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/22941/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined 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."
12. In view of the aforesaid observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court and considering the overall facts of the present case and the conduct of the applicant, the application is allowed. The order dated 28.2.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.742 of 2023, granting regular bail to respondent No.2, is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the respondent No.2 herein is directed to surrender before the authority concerned within a period of 10 days from today.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) LAVKUMAR J JANI Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:26:05 IST 2025