Gujarat High Court
Bipin Jadavjibhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 1 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/536/2013 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 536 of 2013
==========================================================
BIPIN JADAVJIBHAI PATEL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KARTIK V PANDYA(2435) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR. H. K. PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 01/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the applicants challenging the judgment and order dated 23.08.2013 passed below Exhibit 20, by learned 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Viramgam in Criminal Misc. Application No.138 of 2013.
2. Heard the learned advocates for the applicants and also considered the detailed objections filed by the complainant. The core issue so far as the present revision application is concerned, is the violation of condition No.2 qua the applicant No.1 - original applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No.131 of 2012 and condition No.2 qua the present applicants No.2, 3 and 4 - original applicants in Criminal Misc. Application No.188 of 2012. The said condition which pertaining to mark presence of the applicants before Viramgam (Rural) Police Station, once Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 08 21:57:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/536/2013 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined from 1st to 5th of every month between 11:00 a.m. to 02:00 p.m. till the chargesheet is filed, however, as alleged by the first informant i.e. the contesting party that the condition could not have been fulfilled. It transpires that the respondent No.2 has moved to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Viramgam by way of filing Criminal Misc. Application No.138 of 2013 under the provision of Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondents No.2 to 5 therein - applicants No.1 to 4 herein. The learned Sessions Judge, Viramgam after considering and hearing the parties concerned has been pleased to allow the application on 23.08.2013, and ordered to cancel the bail granted to the applicants herein.
3. It is pertinent to note that at the time of filing the said application i.e. on 24.06.2013, so also the order passed by the learned Session Judge on 23.08.2013, the chargesheet has already been submitted before the concerned court. It is also pertinent to note that as per the submission advanced by the learned advocate for the applicants, the trial has commenced and the complainant has already been examined, hence, the issue does not survive at all. It is also submitted that due to the bonafide, the applicants could not have marked their presence before the concerned authority, however, no such other condition seems to have been violated / breached, and that cannot be considered as a sole ground to cancel the bail, hence, the order in question is required to be set aside.
4. Upon called, none remained present for the respondent No.2, however, considering the objections filed by the Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 08 21:57:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/536/2013 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined respondent No.2, learned APP has also submitted that the only question which is required to be considered is with regard to non-marking of presence before the concerned police station till the chargesheet is filed, however, the chargesheet is filed and the trial has already been commenced, as submitted by learned APP.
5. In view of the aforesaid, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions that a mere breach and violation of such condition; which otherwise does not affect the trial, what appears to be violated on a bonafide mistake, which cannot be considered as the criteria for cancellation of bail; as the granting of the bail stands on a different footing, rather than canceling the bail. Hence, the present application deserves for consideration.
6. In the result, the judgment and order dated 23.08.2013 passed below Exhibit 20, by learned 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Viramgam in Criminal Misc. Application No.138 of 2013 is hereby quashed and set aside. Parties to solicit co-operation.
(R. T. VACHHANI, J) NITIN MAKWANA Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 08 21:57:25 IST 2025