Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rupindrasingh @ Pintu Gurudevsingh on 5 December, 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/663/2021 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
663 of 2021
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RUPINDRASINGH @ PINTU GURUDEVSINGH
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS CM SHAH APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
RULE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 05/12/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present petition under Section 439(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner State has
prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 07/11/2020
passed by the learned 5 th Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad in
Criminal Misc. Application No.445 of 2020, whereby the learned
Session Judge has granted regular bail to the respondents -
original accused in connection with the offence being CR
No.11200011201984 of 2020 punishable under Sections 65(a)(e),
98(2) and 81 of the Prohibition Act.
2. Heard learned APP for the petitioner State. Though served,
none appears for the respondent.
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
349; Kashmira Singh v Duman Singh, (1996) 4 SCC 693 and X v
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/663/2021 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
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 from the conscious possession of the
respondents-accused the muddamal liquor was found and since
they are not the permanent resident of State of Gujarat, there
might be chances of they being not available for trial and
therefore 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
that the respondents-accused may not be available for trial. No
such supporting evidence or similar incident is reported or
stated in the application. In absence of such material, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/663/2021 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
apprehension shown by the applicant is misconceived.
Furthermore, the offence is triable by Magistrate Court where
maximum punishment is of seven years. Merely, making
averments that respondents-accused may not be available for
trial would not be a sufficient ground seeking cancellation of
bail. Learned APP has 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 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.
Rule is discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
sompura
