Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Mohammed Kasim Salimbhai Shaikh on 30 November, 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/268/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/11/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
268 of 2021
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MOHAMMED KASIM SALIMBHAI SHAIKH
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Applicant
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 30/11/2023
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 12.5.2020 passed
by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Khambhat in
Criminal Misc. Application No.115 of 2020, whereby the learned
Session Judge has granted anticipatory 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/268/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/11/2023
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 accused was a part of a mob and he
was pelting stones and holding deadly weapon, which prima
facie established his involvement in the offence.
6. The learned Sessions Court in para 6.3 and 6.4 held as
under while granting anticipatory bail:-
"6.3 Moreover, he wrote a letter dated 02/03/2020 to
DSP as well as 10, and informed him about his fact to
prevent false implication. For the same he has provided a
CD of cctv footage recorded for his such presence at
Kalavati Hospital, situated on College Road, Khambhat to
IO and other higher officers also. For the same he has
provided a CD of cctv footage recorded for his such presence
at hospital.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/268/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/11/2023
undefined
6.4 As IO has been provided with enough time to verify
his claim by scrutinizing the cctv footage of hospital as well
as by examining the staff of hospital who witnessed his
presence for the time claimed by him. Nothing reasonable,
is on record to contradict or repudiate the claim of presence
at the hospital. Moreover, as per his claim he was spotted
before the camera from from 13:40 on 23/02/2020 to 08:30
AM in the morning on 24/02/2020, whereas, incident took
place from 02:00 PM. Moreover, as per FIR the incident
started at 2:00 at noon and at the same time, the presence
of the applicant has been confirmed at the location claimed
by the applicant."
7. 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.
8. 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."
9. Resultantly, present petition fails and stands dismissed.
Notice discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
