Gujarat High Court
Naranbhai Lakhabhai Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat on 9 April, 2026
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 213 of
2025
================================================================
NARANBHAI LAKHABHAI PRAJAPATI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR NAYAN L GUPTA for MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s)
No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 09/04/2026
ORDER
1. Notice has been served qua respondent No.2 but none appear for the respondent No.2.
2. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.
3. By way of this application, a prayer is made to quash and set aside the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Idar, Sabarkantha in Criminal Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 23:59:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026 undefined Miscellaneous Application No.678 of 2024 as also the execution, implementation and further operation of the said order till the applicant is released on bail.
4. The applicant is the original accused of the FIR registered as I-C.R. No.0040 of 2014 with Kheroj Police Station, District Sabarkantha for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 465, 466, 468, 471, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 7, 13(1) (D) (1)(2) and (3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
5. The applicant is before this Court challenging the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Idar, Sabarkantha in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.678 of 2024 whereby the bail granted came to be cancelled by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 06.09.2023 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.12979 of 2023 came to be cancelled.
6. Learned advocate for the applicant Mr. Nayan L. Gupta submitted that the cancellation of bail by the Sessions Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 23:59:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026 undefined Judge was on the premise that the applicant has failed to follow condition No.6.[f] in the order dated 06.09.2023 granting bail to the applicant. Condition No.6.[f] is reproduced herein for ready reference :-
"[f] mark his presence before the concerned police station in the first week of every month till the trial is over;"
7. Learned advocate Mr. Nayan L. Gupta submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has noted that the accused had appeared at the Police Station by referring to the attendance sheet lastly on 04.06.2024 and thereafter, has failed to appear before the police and thereby, considered it as a breach of conditions of the order of granting bail. It is further submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the applicant has not marked his presence before the concerned Police Station after the condition being laid by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 06.09.2025. It is further submitted that the order of the learned Sessions Judge itself reflects that from 10.09.2024 to 03.01.2025, the accused had marked his presence before the Kheroj Police Station. It is further submitted that qua the Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 23:59:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026 undefined applicant another FIR was filed on 07.06.2024 and in that matter, the applicant was released on bail on 24.11.2025. whereas the bail granted by the High Court came to be cancelled on 13.01.2025. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet of the matter where the applicant was granted bail was filed on 26.06.2024 in ACB Case No.1 of 2023. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge was granted liberty by the order of the Co-ordinate Bench to even delete / modify / and / or relax any of the conditions in accordance with the law.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Nayan L. Gupta submitted that once the charge-sheet has been filed before the Court, then that matter is in seisen and the concerned Judge should not insist of the accused to simultaneously mark his presence before the Investigating Officer or the Police Station concerned or in any other police station concerned. It is further submitted that the learned Judge has failed to take into notice that the applicant was granted bail in connection the FIR which was filed on 07.06.2024. Learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 23:59:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026 undefined Kadarsha Latifsha Saiyed thro Jamilsha Kadarsha Saiyed v. State of Gujarat reported in LiveLaw (Guj) 2024 96.
9. Countering the above arguments, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Bhargav Pandya submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench had directed the applicant to mark his presence before the concerned Police Station in the first week of every month till the trial is over. The applicant as an accused was required to adhere to the conditions scrupulously and if at all, he had any difficulty he was required to move the concerned Court for relaxation of the condition or to move the concerned Court for deletion of the condition. It is further submitted that since the condition is still in force, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge canceling the bail is just and proper.
10. Having heard submissions of both the sides, the admitted position is that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the concerned Sessions Court in connection to the FIR wherein the applicant was granted bail by the Co- Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 23:59:10 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026 undefined ordinate Bench on 06.09.2023.
11. The object of bail has been laid down in case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, wherein in para-14, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :
Para-14:- In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, `necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson."Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 23:59:10 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026 undefined
12. In case of Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-4 held as under :
"4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) 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 concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, 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. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted."
13. Thus in Dolat Ram's case, it has been held that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a manner Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 23:59:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026 undefined 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. In the case of X Vs. State of Telangana, reported in 2018 (16) SCC 511, the Apex Court has held that bail once granted should not be cancelled unless a cogent case based on a supervening event has been made out. It has been observed that second FIR is not a supervening circumstance of such a nature, as would warrant the cancellation of bail, which was granted by the High Court.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Vs. State (Delhi Administration), reported in (1978) 1 SCC 118, held two paramount considerations, while considering petition for grant of bail in a non- bailable offence, apart from the seriousness of the offence, there is likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with prosecution witnesses. Both of them relate to ensure a fair trial of the case. Therefore, to ensure a fair trial, all considerations are Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 23:59:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026 undefined explored while granting bail. Thus, when the question is raised on the power to cancel bail, the same has to be exercised with great care and circumspection. Cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of bail.
15. This Court would also like to refer to the decision in the case of Merubhai Ramabhai Khodiyatar (Hun) Rabari v. State of Gujarat reported in 2021 (2) G.L.R. 1175. In Paragraph 16.1, it was held as under :-
"The grounds for cancellation of bail and grounds of rejection of bail are two different circumstances and hence the consideration of the court on the issue also becomes different, while hearing the application for cancellation of bail, the court has to be more rigid, as it has to examine not only the possibility of violation, but also the possible consequences. The power of cancellation of bail must be exercised with care and circumspection keeping in mind the urgent and overwhelming circumstances. The bail already granted should not be cancelled on a routine manner, as it jeopardizes the personal liberty of the person. In the present case, the respondent - State has not been able to show any supervening circumstances, which would reflect that the liberty, granted to the accused, was misused, and no longer conducive to a fair trial."
16. In the referred judgments, the Apex Court while dealing with the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra) has very categorically noted that the imprisonment before Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 23:59:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026 undefined conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail to any convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. Rejection of bail and cancellation of bail both have its own standards and has a different perspective to be examined. Once bail 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. The bail once granted should not be cancelled unless cogent case based on supervening event has been made out.
17. The learned trial Court has not noted that the accused was not remaining present before the Court his lawyer was not representing the matter. Further, the concerned learned Judge merely on an application being moved without examining the likelihood of the accused fleeing away from justice or any conduct of the accused hence, merely on observing that there is breach of the conditions of the Co-ordinate Bench has cancelled the Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 23:59:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026 undefined bail granted by the High Court. The learned Judge had failed to appreciate the liberty granted in Paragraph 7 of the order of the Co-ordinate Bench where the concerned Court had the liberty to delete / modify and/or relax any of the conditions in accordance with law. The learned Judge thus, was required to balance the necessity of the presence of the accused before the Police Station, alongwith the fact that the presence of the accused before the trial Court would be necessary to ensure that he remains present while the evidence get recorded after framing of the charge. The impugned order of cancellation of bail frustrates the liberty granted to the accused. It appears that the learned Judge had not given favourable consideration of the observations of the Co- ordinate Bench in Paragraph 7 of the order and thereupon could have considered the case of the accused as well as from the side of the State to deal with as to whether there was any necessity of condition No.6.[f] to be followed by the accused.
18. This Court finds that the order of cancellation of bail passed by the learned Judge is perverse, unjust and Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 23:59:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026 undefined improper. The learned Judge has not undertaken the exercise of apprising the necessity of the applicant's presence before the Police Station even after the charge- sheet has been filed before that Court.
19. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion and considering the principles as laid down in the above decisions, the present application is allowed. The order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Idar, Sabarkantha in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.678 of 2024 is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is permitted.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI, J) CAROLINE / SB-1 # 3 Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 23:59:10 IST 2026