Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Yusuf @ Fezal Hanifbhai Shahmdar on 5 December, 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9701/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
9701 of 2022
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
YUSUF @ FEZAL HANIFBHAI SHAHMDAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS CM SHAH, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 05/12/2023
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 19.2.2022 passed
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajula in Criminal Misc.
Application No.29 of 2022, whereby the learned Session Judge
has granted bail granted to the respondent - original accused.
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
State of Telangana, (2018) 16 SCC 511, held as follows:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9701/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
'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 though strongly argued to cancel the
anticipatory bail on submission that the learned Sessions Court
while granting anticipatory bail 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. Learned APP also argued that the learned Sessions Court
has failed to notice that the charges levelled against the
respondent accused are very serious. She would further submit
that the respondent accused abducted the victim forcefully and
raped the minor victim by giving false promise of marriage and
therefore, prima facie involvement of the respondent accused is
established in the offence in question.
6. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9701/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
trial.
7. 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."
8. Resultantly, present petition fails and stands dismissed.
Notice discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
