Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Subhash Gordhanbhai Bodar on 8 December, 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12765/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
12765 of 2019
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SUBHASH GORDHANBHAI BODAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Applicant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED 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 12.06.2019,
passed by the learned Additional Sessions and Special Judge,
Surendranagar, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 512 of 2019,
whereby the learned Session Judge has granted anticipatory
bail to the respondent - original accused.
2. Heard learned APP for the petitioner State. Though
served, none appears for the Respondent-original 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 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/12765/2019 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, he failed to
submit any supervening circumstances being rendered in
conducing to allow fair trial.
5. Learned APP also argued that the learned Sessions Court
has failed to notice that the Respondent was well-aware of the
entire scheme and he played an active role in the commission
of the alleged offence, from the inception. It was, therefore,
submitted that the concerned trial Court ought to have taken
into consideration the CDR / SDR reports produced by the
concerned Investigating Officer along with his affidavit dated
10.06.2019, filed before the concerned trial Court, which
indicate the involvement of the Respondent in the alleged
offence. In essence, it was submitted that as the Respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12765/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2023
undefined
played the main role in the commission of the alleged offence,
the trial Court concerned ought not to have exercised
discretion in his favour.
6. 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:-
"19. The learned Special Judge has himself
distinguished cases of the persons who have indulged
into extortion for furthering the activities of the
organization and the persons like the present appellants,
who were government servants, and compelled to
contribute the amount. We, therefore, find that it cannot
be said that the prima facie opinion, as expressed by the
learned Special Judge, could be said to be perverse or
impossible."
8. Resultantly, present petition fails and stands dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
UMESH/-
