Gujarat High Court
Bhavesh Kanubhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 17 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6842/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 6842 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 7142 of 2025
==========================================================
BHAVESH KANUBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JIMIT P SHAH(9917) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS BHAVIKA H KOTECHA(2942) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 17/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
ORDER IN R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO.6842 of 2025: -
1. By filing the present petition under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: -
"13. A. Your Lordships may be pleased allow and admit this petition;
B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ order or direction quashing and setting the aside the order dated order dated 29.03.2025 passed below Exhibit 14 by the Ld. 23 rd Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.11 in Criminal Case No. 40236 of 2019 at (Annex- G) and order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge Court No.3 City Civil and Sessions Court at Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No.208 of 2025 at (Annex-H) and further be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail;Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by RAVI SATISHKUMAR OZA(HCW0111) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 22:01:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/6842/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined C. Pending the Admission and Final Hearing of the petition Your Lordships may be pleased to stay order dated order dated 29.03.2025 passed below Exhibit 14 by the Ld. 23 rd Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.11 in Criminal Case No.40236 of 2019 at (Annex-G) and order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge Court No.3 City Civil and Sessions Court at Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No.208 of 2025 at (Annex-H) and further be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail;
D. Your Lordship may be pleased to grant any other just and proper reliefs as deemed fit, in the interest of justice."
2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent
- State, Learned Advocate Ms. Bhavika Kotecha for the complainant waives service of notice on behalf of respondent - original complainant.
3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to file the present petition are such that an offence being CR. No.I-64 of 2018 came to be registered with Mahila Police Station (East), Ahmedabad against the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 498(A), 323, 494(B), 506(2) and 114 of IPC and other provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
4. The petitioner and the other co-accused were ordered to be enlarged on bail by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad vide Order dated 26.04.2019. Certain conditions were imposed by the learned Court while ordering them to be enlarged on bail. Thereafter, the respondent - original complainant filed an application under Section 437(5) of Cr.P.C. seeking the bail granted to the petitioner and the other co-accused to be Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by RAVI SATISHKUMAR OZA(HCW0111) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 22:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/6842/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined cancelled on the ground of the conditions imposed by the learned Court while ordering the petitioner and the other co-accused to be enlarged on bail were not complied with. The application in question was filed by the first informant in the year 2019 which came to be allowed by the learned Trial Court vide Order dated 29.03.2025. The learned Trial Court while cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner and the other co-accused had granted them time of 30 days to surrender before the concerned Court. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the bail granted to the accused being cancelled, the petitioner and the other co- accused filed a Criminal Revision Application No.208 of 2025 before the learned Sessions Court whereas the first informant filed Criminal Revision Application No.170 of 2025 challenging the order passed by the learned Trial Court so far as it relates to granting 30 days' time to the accused for surrender. Learned Sessions Court vide Judgment and Order dated 28.04.2025 had dismissed the revision application filed by the respondent - first informant whereas partly allowed the revision application filed by the accused persons and the Order passed by the learned Trial Court cancelling the bail was quashed and set aside qua the other co-accused whereas the same was confirmed qua the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
5. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the first informant had filed an application for cancellation of bail in the year of 2019 whereas the same was allowed in the year 2025. In the interregnum, the Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by RAVI SATISHKUMAR OZA(HCW0111) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 22:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/6842/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined petitioner had remained present before the learned Trial Court and charge has also been framed against him as well as the other accused. He submitted that the petitioner is the resident of Mumbai, and therefore, could not comply with certain conditions enforced by the learned Trial Court while ordering him to be enlarged on bail. He submitted that after filing of the application for cancellation of bail, till it was allowed, the warrants were issued against the petitioner on couple of occasions and the petitioner had remained present before the learned Trial Court asking for cancellation of those warrants and those warrants were resultantly cancelled by the learned Trial Court. He further submitted that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner of not remaining present before the concerned Court or evade the trial. The petitioner is still ready and willing to remain present for trial of the offence in question. He, therefore, submitted to allow the present petition and quash and set aside the order of cancelling bail granted to the petitioner and its confirmation by the learned Sessions Court.
6. Learned APP has opposed the present petition contending that after being enlarged on bail, the petitioner and the other co-accused were not remaining present before the concerned Court, and therefore, warrants were required to be issued against them to secure their presence. He also submitted that the petitioner herein had also not complied with the other conditions imposed upon him by the learned Trial Court by the order granting him regular bail, and therefore, the learned Trial Court was constraint to cancel the bail Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by RAVI SATISHKUMAR OZA(HCW0111) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 22:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/6842/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined granted to him. No error can be said to have committed either by the learned Trial Court or by the learned Sessions court in passing the orders impugned in the present petition. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the application.
7. Learned Ms. Bhavika Kotech appearing for the respondent - original complainant submitted that recently an order under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. has been passed against the petitioner by the learned Trial Court as even after cancellation of bail, the petitioner has not remained present before the learned Trial Court. She submitted that the petitioner had committed breach of the other conditions also imposed upon him by the learned Trial Court while granting him bail. The petitioner is habitual in not remaining present before the learned Trial Court and because of his absence, the trial has been delayed. She, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present petition.
8. After learned Advocate Ms. Bhavika Kotecha had made her submissions, the respondent - complainant who was also personally present in the Court, tried to make her statement.
9. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. The present petitioner happens to be the husband of the respondent - complainant. She had lodged the FIR in question against the petitioner and the other co-accused for the offence referred to hereinabove. In the said offence, the petitioner and the other co-accused were ordered to be enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court. However, as per Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by RAVI SATISHKUMAR OZA(HCW0111) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 22:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/6842/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined the case of prosecution, the conditions imposed upon them by the learned Trial Court while granting them bail, were not complied with, and therefore, the original complainant submitted an application under Section 437(5) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court in the year 2019. The said application remained pending before the learned Trial Court till 29.03.2025 and it was on 29.03.2025 that the bail granted to the petitioner and the other co-accused was cancelled by the learned Trial Court exercising its powers under Section 437(5) of Cr.P.C. It is the case of prosecution that the petitioner and the other co-accused had not furnished solvency certificates before the learned Trial Court. They were also required to surrender their passports within a period of 3 days from the date of the order. However, the passports were also not surrendered by the co-accused persons. Thus, the bail granted to the petitioner and the other co-accused were sought to be cancelled only on the ground of non-compliance of the conditions imposed upon them. The material available on record indicates that in the interregnum, the petitioner herein has remained present before the learned Trial Court on a couple of occasions. Even, after the issuance of warrants, the petitioner had appeared before the Court and had prayed for cancellation of warrants issued against him. Thus, it is not the case that the petitioner has not at all remained present before the learned Trial Court after being released on bail. It is also stated by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner herein will abide by all the conditions imposed upon him while ordering him to be enlarged on bail. There is nothing on record to indicate Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by RAVI SATISHKUMAR OZA(HCW0111) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 22:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/6842/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined about any serious prejudice being caused to the complainant because of the petitioner being enlarged on bail. Under the circumstances, the present petition is allowed. The Orders passed by the learned 23 rd Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad below application under Section 437(5) of Cr.P.C. as well as the Order passed by the learned Sessions Court dismissing the Criminal Revision Application No.208 of 2025 so far as it relates to the present petitioner, are quashed and set aside.
ORDER IN R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO.7142 of 2025: -
1. By filing the present petition under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: -
"7. A. Be pleased to allow this petition;
B. Be pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by the Ld. City Sessions Judge, Bhadra, Ahmedabad City, in Revision Application No.208/2025 dated 28-04-2025;
C. Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to stay the further implementation, operation and execution of the impugned order passed in Criminal Revision Application No.208/2025, passed by the Ld. City Sessions Judge, Bhadra, Ahmedabad dated 28-04-2025;
D. Be pleased to grant such other and further relief which deems fit and proper in the interest of justice."
2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice for on behalf of the respondent - State, learned Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kanani for the Respondent Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by RAVI SATISHKUMAR OZA(HCW0111) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 22:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/6842/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined Nos.2 to 8 waives service of notice.
3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to file the present petition are such that an offence being CR. No.I-64 of 2018 came to be registered with Mahila Police Station (East), Ahmedabad against the Respondent Nos.2 to 8 for an offence punishable under Section 498(A), 323, 494(B), 506(2) and 114 of IPC and other provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
4. The accused persons were ordered to be enlarged on bail by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad vide Order dated 26.04.2019. Certain conditions were imposed by the learned Court while ordering them to be enlarged on bail. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed an application under Section 437(5) of Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail granted to the Respondent Nos.2 to 8 on the ground that the conditions imposed by the learned Court while ordering the respondents to be enlarged on bail were not complied with. The application in question was filed by the petitioner herein in the year 2019 which came to be allowed by the learned Trial Court vide Order dated 29.03.2025. The learned Trial Court while cancelling the bail granted to the respondents had granted them time of 30 days to surrender before the concerned Court. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the bail granted to the accused being cancelled, the Respondent Nos.2 to 8 filed a Criminal Revision Application No.208 of 2025 before the learned Sessions Court whereas the first informant filed Criminal Revision Application No.170 of 2025 challenging the Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by RAVI SATISHKUMAR OZA(HCW0111) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 22:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/6842/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined order passed by the learned Trial Court so far as it relates to granting 30 days' time to the accused for surrender. Learned Sessions Court vide Judgment and Order dated 28.04.2025 had dismissed the revision application filed by the first informant whereas partly allowed the revision application filed by the accused persons and the Order passed by the learned Trial Court cancelling the bail was quashed and set aside qua the Respondent Nos.3 to 8 whereas the same was confirmed qua the Respondent No.2. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
5. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that having regard to the fact that the respondents herein had not remained present before the concerned Court after being enlarged on bail, the learned Sessions Court ought not to have allowed the revision application filed by the Respondent Nos.3 to 8. She further submitted that the respondents herein had deliberately remained absent before the learned Trial Court, and therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly allowed the application filed by the petitioner and had cancelled bail granted to them. Moreover, they had also flouted the conditions imposed upon them by the learned Trial Court while granting them on bail. She also submitted that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Sessions Court ought to have considered the conduct on the part of the respondents herein of remaining absent from the concerned Court, and therefore, ought not to have granted bail period of 30 days for surrendering before the Court. She, Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by RAVI SATISHKUMAR OZA(HCW0111) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 22:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/6842/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined therefore, submitted to allow the present petition and quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court so far as it relates to granting 30 days time to the respondents for surrendering before the Court and the Order passed by the learned Sessions Court allowing the criminal revision application filed by the Respondent Nos.3 to 8.
6. Learned APP has submitted to pass an appropriate order considering the conduct on the part of the respondents.
7. Learned Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kanani for the respondents has opposed the present petition.
8. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner is not in a position to demonstrate any illegality being committed either by the learned Trial Court or by the learned Sessions Court in passing the orders impugned in the present petition. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the learned Trial Court had granted 30 days time to Respondent Nos.2 to 8 for surrendering before the Court whereas the learned Sessions Court had allowed the criminal revision application filed by the Respondent Nos.3 to 8. There is nothing on record to indicate any prejudice being caused to the petitioner. It appears from the record that the bail granted to Respondent Nos.2 to 8 were cancelled because of non-compliance of certain conditions imposed upon them. It is also the case that the Respondent Nos.2 to 8 did not Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by RAVI SATISHKUMAR OZA(HCW0111) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 22:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/6842/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined remain present before the learned Trial Court. However, the record speaks that the Respondent Nos.2 to 8 have regularly remained present before the learned Trial Court and even charges have also been framed against them. Except for few occasions, while warrants were issued against them. However, after issuing of warrants, the respondents have appeared before the Court below and had prayed for cancellation of those warrants and the said request was granted by the learned Trial Court. There is nothing on record to show that either of the respondents had taken any undue advantage of liberty granted to them or they had caused any serious prejudice to the case of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, both the Courts below cannot be said to have committed any error apparent on record. Hence, the present petition being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J) RAVI OZA Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by RAVI SATISHKUMAR OZA(HCW0111) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 22:01:19 IST 2025