Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Parul D/O Dineshchandra Dave W/O ... on 8 December, 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20353/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
20353 of 2023
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PARUL D/O DINESHCHANDRA DAVE W/O PUNITBHAI DAVE
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS CM SHAH, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 08/12/2023
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 11.8.2023 passed
by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nadiad in Criminal
Misc. Application No.853 of 2023, 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/20353/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2023
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. What is weighed with the learned trial Court that present
respondent is a notary and in the capacity of notary, she has
done the act. What further weighed for consideration by the
learned trial Court that the respondent accused is not involved
in making false documents or producing the same as bona fide
and genuine before appropriate authority to get any monetary
benefit. Learned APP, though argued to the extent that the
learned trial Court has passed illegal and unjust order, no
unjustness, perversity or illegality is committed by the learned
trial Court, as the learned trial Court has categorically held that
the present petitioner has played role of notary and has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20353/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2023
undefined
notarized the documents on the basis of the Aadhar Card and
has done nothing except said act. Thus, there is no reason to
render the order passed by the learned trial Court as unjust and
illegal.
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
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.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
