Gujarat High Court
Shahnavaz Rafikbhai Katariya vs Tejmal @ Raghu Hitendrasinh Desai on 7 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6545/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 14/10/2025
Pronounced On : 07/11/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
6545 of 2022
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6546 of 2022
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6547 of 2022
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6548 of 2022
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6549 of 2022
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6550 of 2022
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6556 of 2022
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 9900 of 2022
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 9930 of 2022
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10020 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
========================================================== SHAHNAVAZ RAFIKBHAI KATARIYA Versus TEJMAL @ RAGHU HITENDRASINH DESAI & ANR.
========================================================== Appearance:
M R BHATT & CO.(5953) for the Applicant(s) No. 1CR.MA 6545 OF 2022 DR.ABHISST K THAKER(7010) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 CR.MA 6546, 6547 & 9930 OF 2022 MR. A.B. CHAUHAN, for the Respondent(s) No. 1 CR.MA 6548 OF 2022 MR. NASIR SAIYED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 03:23:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/6545/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined CR.MA 6550 OF 2022 MR. KUNAL S. SHAH for the Respondent(s) No. 1 CR.MA 6556 &10020 OF 2022 MR. ASIFKHAN I. PATHAN for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR. HARDIK SONI, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI COMMON CAV JUDGMENT
1. Since the issue involved in all the captioned applications is interrelated, arising out of the very selfsame FIR, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Fo the sake of convenience, Criminal Misc. Application No.6545 of 2022 is treated as the lead matter.
3. By this application under section 483(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant-original complainant calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the learned 11 th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Misc. Application No.1093 of 2022, whereby the respondent-accused has been ordered to be released on regular bail.
4. The brief background of the present case is that an FIR came to be lodged with the Kim Police Station, Surat being C.R. No.I-11214068220055 of 2022, inter alia, alleging therein that during the period between 30.01.2022 and 02.02.2022, some unidentified suspects made puncture in the Petroleum Pipelines passing through Aamod-Hazira route and committed Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 03:23:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/6545/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined theft of Diesel wroth Rs.4,32,228.64/- and petrol worth Rs.4,20,350.86/-. It is further alleged that despite having knowledge that by puncturing the pipeline, the suspects are likely to cause destruction which may result into loss of life or may cause an accident, the suspect committed the aforesaid act. With this sort of allegations, the FIR came to be lodged.
5. After the registration of the FIR, the respondent-accused came to be arrested and sent to the judicial custody.
6. Therefore, he preferred regular bail application before the Sessions Court at Surat being Criminal Misc. Application No.1093 of 2022, which was strongly opposed by the investigating officer by filing an affidavit dated 21.02.2022.
7. Thereafter, vide the impugned order dated 02.03.2022, the respondent-accused was enlarged on regular bail by the 11th Addl. Sessions Judge, Surat, being aggrieved by which, the original complainant is here before this Court with the present application, seeking cancellation of bail.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Munjal Bhatt appearing for the applicant-original complainant submitted that the bail granted to the respondent-accused deserves to be cancelled, being ex facie, illegal, arbitrary, perverse, unreasonable being passed without appreciating the materials available on record in proper sense and true perspective. He submitted that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have considered the specific role attributed to the respondent-accused in the entire criminal conspiracy. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt further submitted that the respondent-accused is the kingpin of the entire episode, and without his active participation, the entire transaction would not have fructified. Learned advocate Mr. Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 03:23:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/6545/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined Bhatt also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has given a go-by to the affidavit filed by the investigating officer, wherein a specific allegation is made in respect of the fact that the respondent-accused was in constant touch with Ratanbhai Bhawarji Kathik, i.e, the main accused, and had readily agreed to give his farm for carrying out the entire alleged transaction.
He further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have taken note of the fact that the land through which the pipeline was passing belonged to the respondent-accused, and as such, it is impossible to believe that respondent-accused was unaware about the entire work of valve being installed and a 1.5 feet deep hole being dug.
9. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the main accused and the mastermind of the entire episode, namely, Ratanbhai Bharwarji Kathik is a very good friend of the respondent-accused, and as such, enlarging the respondent-accused on bail would have a direct bearing on further investigation of the FIR. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt further submitted that the reliance being placed by the learned Sessions Judge upon the decision of the Rajasthan High Court is of no avail to the respondent-accused since the same is rendered in altogether different facts and circumstances and is limited to Section 15(4) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, wherein as in the present case, there are multiple sections registered apart from this one section. He also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, though noted that there is theft of petrol and diesel, yet has later on, enlarged Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 03:23:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/6545/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined the respondent-accused on regular bail without any rationale or basis. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to take note of the fact that the labourers employed to dig the hole have specifically named the respondent-accused, thereby fortifying his involvement in the transaction from the very inception. He also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has also given a go-by to the offence committed under Section 15(2) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 and only focused on breach of Section 15(4) of the Act. He submitted that the conclusion derived at for non-application of of Section 15(4) is also faulty and deserves to be set aside.
10. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly ignored a pivotal aspect that the pipeline was carrying petrol and diesel, which are highly inflammable in nature, thereby causing direct harm to the public at large. Learned advocated Mr. Bhatt further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has failed in even discussing, let alone analyzing the offences committed under other sections registered in the FIR and has only given a finding qua Section 15(4) of the Act, 1962. He submitted that looking to the nature of the transaction and the specific role attributed to the respondent-accused, there is genuine apprehension on the part of the applicant-original complainant that the respondent-accused would again indulge himself in similar thefts in future, causing huge financial loss to the Company and also would put the lives of the people at stake. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt also submitted that the Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 03:23:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/6545/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined respondent-accused came to be arrested on 13.02.2022, and within a month, by the impugned order dated 02.03.2022, the respondent-accused was enlarged on regular bail in a serious offence like the one on hand. He submitted that the case on hand also falls within the category of economic offences, and it is a settled proposition that in economic offences, bails should not be granted as a matter of course and a routine and mechanical manner. That apart, the respondent-accused has accepted huge sum of money from the other co-accused to give access to his land for committing the offence. He 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 a serious offence like the one on hand. Thus, it has been submitted that the bail granted in favour of the respondents-accused deserves to be cancelled.
11. On the other hand, all the applications have been vehemently opposed by the learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents-accused. Mr. Ishan Rajdev, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-accused in Criminal Misc. Application No.6545 of 2022 submitted that the impugned order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the trial court is a well-reasoned order, being passed after considering and appreciating all the materials available on record, and as such, does not warrant any interference, after a period of more than three years. He submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the the respondent-accused made hand in glove with the other co-accused in committing the crime, however, there is no evidence being placed on record either by the prosecuting agency or the complainant, showing that the Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 03:23:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/6545/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined respondent-accused played any role in the commission of the crime, and only on the basis of the fact that the respondent- accused is the owner of the land, he has been falsely implicated in the present offence, solely on the basis of the statement made by the co-accused. He submitted that except the confessional statement of the co-accused, there is no evidence to show that the respondent-accused was in any manner involved in the commission of the actual crime. Moreover, the respondent-accused is a resident of Surat and there is no any past antecedents against him. Learned advocate Mr. Rajdev further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly exercised its discretion in favour of the respondent-accused. Moreover, the respondent-accused has been released on bail in March, 2022, and now almost more than three years have been passed since the grant of bail, and there is not a single instance being brought to the notice of the Court that the respondent-accused has committed breach of any of the conditions imposed by the trial court while releasing him on bail. Moreover, charge has already been framed and, summonses have also been issued to the witnesses, and as such, at this stage, after a period of more than three years, and when there is substantial progress in the trial, the impugned order dated 02.03.2022 is not required to be interfered with, and thus, the present application deserves to be rejected.
12. The present application has also been vehemently opposed by learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni appearing for the respondent-State. He submitted that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by the Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 03:23:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/6545/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined trial court while passing the impugned orders, and therefore, no interference is required at the end of this Court.
13. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, as also perused the record.
14. 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 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 all those aspects 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.
15. 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 Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 03:23:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/6545/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined exercised could not be said to be perverse or illegal in any manner.
16. 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 that all the accused persons, in connivance with each other, committed theft of petrol and diesel from the pipeline passing through the field of the respondent-accused, namely, Tejmal @ Raghu Hitendra Desai while opposing the bail application before the trial court. However, it appears from the impugned order that neither the learned advocate for the complainant nor the investigating officer had brought on record any prima facie evidence with regard to the theft being committed by the accused persons, and even otherwise if they are having any material which they could not produce at the time of haring of bail application, then doors are still open for them to establish their case as the trial is still underway.
17. 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 2022, i.e. for more than three years, and during this period, not a single instance 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 Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 03:23:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/6545/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined entire order of granting bail to the respondents-accused cannot be vitiated.
18. 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 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.
19. 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, Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 03:23:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/6545/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined
(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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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 Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 03:23:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/6545/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined freedom by enjoying concession of bail during trial.
23. 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 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."
24. 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.
25. 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 Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 03:23:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/6545/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined 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 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.
26. 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.
27. 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 Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 03:23:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/6545/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined 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. Noticing special feature, Court upheld order of High Court granting bail.
28. 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.
29. 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 more than three years, and therefore, order of cancellation of bail cannot be justified at this stage.
30. In the result, all the applications fail and are hereby rejected. Notice stands discharged.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) VAHID Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 03:23:01 IST 2025