Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ramesh Mangal S/O Satyaprakash Mangal on 1 December, 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11665/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
11665 of 2022
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAMESH MANGAL S/O SATYAPRAKASH MANGAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SHUBHAM JHAJHARIA(10231) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 01/12/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present petition under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner State has
prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 11.03.2022
passed by the learned City Civil & Special Judge, Ahmedabad in
Criminal Misc. Application No.30 of 2022, whereby the learned
Session Judge has rejected the application seeking cancellation
of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent -original accused
mainly on the ground that accused was passing threat to the
witnesses and thereby committed breach of condition no.(c)
imposed while granting anticipatory bail.
2. Heard learned APP for the petitioner State and learned
Advocate for the respondent-accused.
3. In Bhagwan Singh v Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak
reported in 2023 INSC 7613, this Court after considering
judgment in case of Dolat Ram v State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11665/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2023
undefined
349; Kashmira Singh v Duman Singh, (1996) 4 SCC 693 and X v
State of Telangana, (2018) 16 SCC 511, held as follows:
'13. It is also required to be borne in mind that when a
prayer is made for the cancellation of grant of bail
cogent and overwhelming circumstances must be
present and bail once granted cannot be cancelled in a
mechanical manner without considering whether any
supervening circumstances have rendered it in
conducing to allow fair trial. This proposition draws
support from the Judgment of this Court in Daulat
Ram and others v. State of Haryana reported in (1995)
1 SCC 349, Kashmira Singh v. Duman Singh (1996) 4
SCC 693 and xxx v. State of Telangana (2018) 16 SCC
511.'
4. Learned APP has assailed the impugned order mainly on
the ground that the respondent-accused was passing threat to
the witnesses and tried to win over the witness and therefore
pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent-accused ought to have
cancelled. He would further submit that the learned Sessions
Court while rejecting such application did not consider the
factors to be considered for granting or rejecting the bail, has
failed to submit any supervening circumstances being rendered
it in conducing to allow fair trial.
5. Having heard the learned APP and perusing the impugned
order, this Court does not find any material on record to believe
the allegations with regard to alleged threat pass over by the
respondent-accused to the witnesses. Merely, making of
allegations of sending messages to the witnesses and thereby
tried to influence the case of prosecution would not be a
sufficient ground seeking cancellation of bail. Learned APP has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11665/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2023
undefined
failed to point out any material to show in support of the
grounds mentioned in the memo of application. Thus, this
Court finds no circumstances to adjudge the impugned order as
unjust and contrary to the settled principles of law. As held
earlier, the petitioner has failed to point out supervening
circumstances, which may interfere with the fair trial.
6. Before parting with the order, I may also refer the
observations made in the recent decision by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Kekhriesatuo Tep and others Vs.National
Investigating Agency reported in (2023) 6 SCC 58. The relevant
observation made in para 19 reads as under:-
"The Special Judge has himself distinguished cases of the persons
who 이 have indulged into extortion for furthering the activities of
the organisation and red the persons like the present appellants,
who were government servants, and er, compelled to contribute
the amount. Hence, it cannot be said that the prima ell facie
opinion, as expressed by the Special Judge, could be said to be
perverse or impossible."
7. Resultantly, present petition fails and stands dismissed.
Notice discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
sompura
