Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Vishal Harshadbhai Budhdev on 9 February, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14257/2023 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
14257 of 2023
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
VISHAL HARSHADBHAI BUDHDEV
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS ASMITA PATEL, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HIRENKUMAR M NIYALCHANDANI(9959) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 09/02/2024
ORAL ORDER
When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned advocate
for the respondent is absent.
1. By way of the present petition under Section 439(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner State has
prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 13.06.2023
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in
Criminal Misc. Application No.2114 of 2023, whereby the
learned Session Judge has granted regular bail to the
respondent - original accused.
2. Heard learned APP for the petitioner State.
3. In Bhagwan Singh v Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak
reported in 2023 INSC 7613, the Hon'ble Apex Court after
considering judgment in case of Dolat Ram v State of Haryana,
(1995) 1 SCC 349; Kashmira Singh v Duman Singh, (1996) 4
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14257/2023 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2024
undefined
SCC 693 and X v State of Telangana, (2018) 16 SCC 511, held as
follows:
'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 bail on
submission that the learned Sessions Court while granting 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 Trial Court has
taken causal approach in granting bail to the respondent in fake
currency. It is submitted that respondent accused is involved in
various offence and therefore, it is urged to allow this petition
and to cancel the bail granted to the accused.
6. On going through the impugned order, it appears that
there is no case of prosecution that fake currency has been
circulated by the respondent accused in open market. Only 100
notes in denomination of Rs.500 has been found with the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14257/2023 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2024
undefined
respondent - accused, but he has not circulated in the market.
Considering this aspect, learned Trial Judge has exercised
discretion. I do not find any reason to interfere with the
impugned order. To be noted that other two accused who are
having higher role have not been put to proceeding of
cancellation by the prosecution. 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 20 reads as under:-
"20. An interference by an Appellate Court and particularly in a
matter when liberty granted to a citizen was being taken away
would be warranted only in the event the view taken by the Trial
Court was either perverse or impossible. On this limited ground,
we find that the appeals deserve to be allowed."
8. Resultantly, present petition fails and stands dismissed.
Rule discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
