State Of Gujarat vs Jaydev Bhikhaji Bagul

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Jaydev Bhikhaji Bagul on 30 November, 2023

                                                                              NEUTRAL CITATION




     R/CR.MA/1112/2021                           ORDER DATED: 30/11/2023

                                                                               undefined




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
                         1112 of 2021

==========================================================
                           STATE OF GUJARAT
                                 Versus
                         JAYDEV BHIKHAJI BAGUL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Applicant
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                            Date : 30/11/2023

                             ORAL ORDER

1. By way of the present petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner State has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 5.11.2020 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chhota Udepur in Criminal Misc. Application No.849 of 2020, whereby the learned Session Judge has granted anticipatory bail granted to the respondent - original accused.

2. Heard learned APP for the petitioner State. Though served, none appears for the respondent.

3. In Bhagwan Singh v Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak reported in 2023 INSC 7613, this Court after considering judgment in case of Dolat Ram v State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349; Kashmira Singh v Duman Singh, (1996) 4 SCC 693 and X v State of Telangana, (2018) 16 SCC 511, held as follows:

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1112/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/11/2023 undefined '13. It is also required to be borne in mind that when a prayer is made for the cancellation of grant of bail cogent and overwhelming circumstances must be present and bail once granted cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it in conducing to allow fair trial. This proposition draws support from the Judgment of this Court in Daulat Ram and others v. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, Kashmira Singh v. Duman Singh (1996) 4 SCC 693 and xxx v. State of Telangana (2018) 16 SCC

511.'

4. Learned APP though strongly argued to cancel the anticipatory bail on submission that the learned Sessions Court while granting anticipatory bail did not consider the factors to be considered for granting or rejecting the bail, has failed to submit any supervening circumstances being rendered it in conducing to allow fair trial.

5. Learned APP also argued that the learned Sessions Court has failed to notice that there are many antecedents against the respondent accused and the investigating officer in the affidavit categorically stated that there are 11 antecedents of the accused of similar nature. Learned APP would further submit that the learned Sessions Court has failed to consider the fact that 16104 bottles worth Rs.19,29,480/- has been recovered at the time of incident and therefore, prima facie involvement of the respondent accused is established in the offence in question.

6. Thus, this Court finds no circumstances to adjudge the impugned order as unjust and contrary to the settled principles Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 30 20:47:14 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1112/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/11/2023 undefined of law. As held earlier, the petitioner has failed to point out supervening circumstances, which may interfere with the fair trial.

7. Before parting with the order, I may also refer the observations made in the recent decision by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kekhriesatuo Tep and others Vs.National Investigating Agency reported in (2023) 6 SCC 58. The relevant observation made in para 19 reads as under:-

"The Special Judge has himself distinguished cases of the persons who 이 have indulged into extortion for furthering the activities of the organisation and red the persons like the present appellants, who were government servants, and er, compelled to contribute the amount. Hence, it cannot be said that the prima ell facie opinion, as expressed by the Special Judge, could be said to be perverse or impossible."

8. Resultantly, present petition fails and stands dismissed. Notice discharged.

(J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 30 20:47:14 IST 2023