Gujarat High Court
Bismillaben Kamruddin Daudbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 16 February, 2022
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
R/CR.MA/14172/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/02/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 14172 of 2020
In
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 310 of 2015
==========================================================
BISMILLABEN KAMRUDDIN DAUDBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. NISHIT P GANDHI(6946) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 16/02/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. By this application under Section 439(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the applicant - original complainant seeks to
cancel the bail granted to respondent No.2 pending revision
application by this Court vide order dated 03.07.2015 in Criminal
Revision Application No.310/2015.
2. The brief facts leading to filing present application is that,
respondent No.2 viz. Ghanchi Sikandarbhai has challenged
judgment and order of conviction passed by learned JMFC,
Radhanpur, Dist. Patan, in Criminal Case No.358/2008, wherein, the
Court has convicted him under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code and
directed him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 2 years and
imposed fine of Rs.5,000/-, failing which, to undergo further 2
months simple imprisonment. Respondent No.2 by filing an appeal
challenged the order of conviction before the Sessions Court and
after hearing the parties, the Sessions Court confirmed the
judgment of JMFC Court. Respondent No.2 by way of filing Criminal
Revision Application No.310/2015 before this Court, has challenged
the impugned orders of Court below, wherein, on 03.07.2015, a
R/CR.MA/14172/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/02/2022
coordinate Bench of this Court admitted the revision and pending
hearing and final disposal of the revision, suspended conviction and
enlarged him on regular bail, with certain conditions such as
Respondent No.2 shall mark his presence once in a month before
the concerned police station and shall not leave the territory of
India, and also directed him to deposit his passport and shall not
enter in Meer Darwaja, Jjillawada Area of District Patan. It is alleged
that, after releasing on bail, respondent No.2 on 13.07.2018
committed similar kind of offence, for which FIR being I-
C.R.No.18/2018 came to be registered with Radhanpur Police
Station, Dist. Patan. It is further alleged that on 21.12.2019,
respondent No.2 trespassed into the house of the applicant, made
physical contact and attempted to commit an offence of rape, for
which the FIR being I-C.R.No.170/2019 came to be registered at
Radhanpur Police Station.
In the aforesaid facts, the applicant herein seeks cancellation
of bail granted to respondent No.2 by this Court, as he has misused
the liberty of bail by committing serious offences.
3. Heard Mr.Maulik Soni for Mr. N.K.Majmudar, learned counsel
for the applicant, Mr. Nishit Gandhi, learned counsel for respondent
No.2 and Ms. Krina Calla, learned APP for the respondent State.
4. Mr. Soni, learned counsel for the applicant - original
complainant would submit that, respondent No.2 has abused the
concession granted by this Court and committed two serious
offences on different occasion, for which, the applicant lodged two
separate FIRs. Referring to the contents of two FIRs, the leaned
counsel would submit that, respondent No.2 is habitual offender and
there is likelihood of offence being repeated by him and therefore,
his bail is required to be cancelled.
R/CR.MA/14172/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/02/2022
5. Mr. Nishit Gandhi, reiterating the contentions of the affidavit
filed by respondent No.2, submitted that, the respondent No.2 has
not committed breach of any condition of the bail and with a view to
harass him and his family members and taking advantage of being a
female, false complaints have been filed. He has submitted that, in
both the cases, respondent No.2 enlarged on bail. He further
submitted that, for nearly 15 years, there had been dispute between
two families and respondent No.2 is the victim of such feud.
In the aforesaid contentions raised by Mr. Gandhi, he
submitted that the application is not sustainable in law and the
same deserves to be dismissed.
6. Ms. Krina Calla, learned APP for the respondent State would
submit that, in view of the two offences subsequent to the release of
respondent No.2, it can be said that he has misused the liberty
granted by this Court.
7. It is settled law that the power of cancellation of bail must be
exercised with care and circumspection, as cogent and
overwhelming circumstances which are necessary for an order
seeking cancellation of bail. Where there is no violation of terms of
order granting bail, cancellation is not justified. The bail already
granted should not be cancelled in a routine manner as it jeopardize
personal liberty of the person.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
upon perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that, bail
granted by the trial Court in two offences, having not been
challenged by the applicant herein. It is not the case of the applicant
that after granting bail by this Court, respondent No.2 has violated
conditions of the bail. It is submitted by learned counsel Mr. Gandhi
that, while releasing respondent No.2 on bail, the Court concerned
has observed that the applicant misused the process of law. The
R/CR.MA/14172/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/02/2022
applicant herein has not produced the impugned order of bail
granted in two offences.
9. In the aforesaid facts, this Court is of considered view that, the
applicant is not able to show any supervening circumstance, which
would reflect that liberty granted to respondent No.2 is misused.
Thus, this Court does not find any cogent reason to interfere with
the order of bail granted to respondent No.2. and therefore, the
applicant failed to make out a case for cancellation of bail.
10. For the foregoing reasons, present application fails and
accordingly is dismissed.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
SUCHIT
