Shabana Altaf Musa Patel D/O ... vs Shaukatbhai Mayuudin Shaikh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1718 Guj

     R/CR.RA/384/2016                                JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2023




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 384 of 2016

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA M. SAREEN

=========================================================
1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed                    No
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                             No

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy                   No
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question                   No
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
          SHABANA ALTAF MUSA PATEL D/O ABDULRASHID PATEL
                              Versus
              SHAUKATBHAI MAYUUDIN SHAIKH & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
SHIVANGI D VYAS(10117) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SS SAIYED(3690) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR. HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA M. SAREEN

                               Date : 20/02/2023
                               ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This application is filed by the Petitioner / Original Complainant for cancellation of Regular Bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharuch to the Respondents in Criminal Misc. Application No. 606 of 2015 and 554 of 2015 in connection with the FIR bearing C.R. No. I-36 of 2015 registered with 'B' Division Police Station, Bharuch for the offences under Sections 307, 324, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

R/CR.RA/384/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2023

2. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Shivangi D. Vyas for the Applicant, learned Advocate Mr. S.S.Saiyed for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned learned APP Mr. Hardik Mehta for Respondent No.3 - State.

3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate Ms. Shivangi D. Vyas for the Petitioner that after the release of the Respondents on bail they have threatened the Appellant as such committed breach of condition to which the Petitioner / Original Complainant has filed an Application before the DSP Bharuch. Moreover it is also submitted that the Respondents were habitual offender and have committed other offences during their release on bail. Hence, the Complainant has filed an application for rejection of bail before the Sessions Court Bharuch vide Criminal Misc. Application No. 34 of 2016. However, the Application was rejected on 22.3.2016 and the present Application for cancellation of bail is filed.

4. It is submitted by learned Advocate Ms. Vyas that the accused persons are habitual offenders and when they were released by the learned Sessions Judge, they have not obeyed the conditions of bail and threatened the Appellant. As such the accused persons are notorious personalities of Baruch District, in that event, bail application ought to have been cancelled. The learned Sessions Judge has not considered the contentions of the Petitioner and has rejected the Application which ought to have been allowed under the circumstances and as prayed ought to have allowed the Application for cancellation of bail of the Respondent Accused persons.

5. Learned Advocate Mr. S.S.Saiyed for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 / Original accused persons has submitted that after release of the Respondents on bail, till today, no untoward incident has occurred and the charge sheet has already been filed and many of the material witnesses have been examined by the Court. Moreover, as per the submission of the Complainant, the Application to the DSP Bharuch is not culminated into any FIR or any case

R/CR.RA/384/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2023

registered against the Respondents after their release on bail. As such there is no ground for cancellation of bail and the present Petition for cancellation of bail deserves to be rejected.

6. On hearing the submissions of both the sides, as such it is obvious that after the release of the Respondents on bail in the year 2015 and in the year 2016, no untoward incident has happened and the Petitioner / Original Complainant has not been able to bring on record any cogent and convincing reason so that it can be considered to be a breach of condition of the bail order as prayed for by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner / Original Complainant nor it can be made out that as per the submission of the learned Advocate for the Petitioner if the Respondents are notorious personalities of District Bharuch and have committed any offences, the State has also not bring on record till today any kind of documentary evidence against the present Respondents. At the same time, as it is submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Saiyed for the Respondents that the Trial Court has already examined the material witnesses as also the medical witnesses have also been examined and in the event and there is no cogent and convincing reason to show that the Respondents have acted in any manner contrary to the condition of the bail, the Application preferred by the Petitioner does not survive. This court is not inclined to consider the Petition for cancellation of bail. However, the Respondents, as per the apprehension of the Complainant, are hereby warned not to commit any kind of untoward incident which can be harmful to the Complainant in any manner.

7. The present petition stands rejected. Rule is discharged.

(RAJENDRA M. SAREEN,J) J.N.W / 145