Gujarat High Court
Rajnikant Bhikhabhai Jadav vs State Of Gujarat on 12 February, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21275/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
21275 of 2021
==========================================================
RAJNIKANT BHIKHABHAI JADAV
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BC DAVE(245) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.AKASH J PANDYA(7206) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR.AMIT R JOSHI(6682) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HK PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 12/02/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present petition under Section 439(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has prayed to
quash and set aside the order dated 02.11.2021 passed by the
learned Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court No.20, Ahmedabad
in Criminal Misc. Application No.7847 of 2021, whereby the
learned Session Judge has granted regular bail to the
respondent - original accused.
2. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21275/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024
undefined
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner also argued that though
name of respondent no.2 is not mentioned in the complaint,
however, during course of investigation, name of respondent
no.2 was mentioned in column of absconding accused. It is
submitted that learned Trial Court has not considered statement
of witnesses which clearly indicates role played by respondent
no.2. It is submitted that respondent no.2 has taken loan from
finance company of petitioner on forged document of the vehicles
which are not in existence. Therefore, it is submitted to allow
the petition.
5. 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
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.'
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21275/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024
undefined
supervening circumstances, which may interfere with the fair
trial.
7. The learned Trial Court in para 5 of the order dated
02.11.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.7847 of
2021 has held as under :-
"5. Heard both the sides. Perused the documents appended
with the application. Without proceeding any further it
needs to be mentioned here that Charge-sheet in the
matter is already fled meaning thereby that substantial
investigation is over, the documentary evidence is in the
custody of the Investigating Agency and the ofences alleged
against the applicant are triable by Magisterial Court. It
also needs to be mentioned here that the applicant was
sanctioned an amount of Rs.1,47,40,000/- towards loan;
the applicant had initially paid the installments and till
date has paid an amount of Rs.46,01,781/-, and on
coming to know that he has been cheated, had stopped
paying installments. This Court cannot lose sight of the
fact that (i) co-accused namely Vishal Dineshbhai Kothari
is enlarged on regular bail by the Honorable High Court of
Gujarat vide Order dated 16/06/2021, passed in
R/Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.6944/2021; (ii)
coaccused Remar Tare Gab has also been enlarged on
anticipatory bail by this very Court vide its Order dated
30/07/2021, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No.5062/2021; (iii) co-accused Bhupendrasinh
Anirudhsinh Chudasama has also been released on
anticipatory bail vide Order dated 13/08/2021, passed in
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.5372/2021, and
therefore without entering any further into the merits of
the case, solely on the ground of parity, this Court deems it
ft and proper to enlarge the present applicant on regular
bail by imposing suitable terms and conditions. Following
Order as such ensues:"
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21275/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024
undefined
8. In the case of Bhagirathsinh Jadeja v/s. State Of Gujarat
[1984 (1) SCC 284], the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 6 has held
as under :-
"6. In our opinion, the learned Judge appears to have
misdirected himself while examining the question of
directing cancellation of bail by interfering with a
discretionary order made by the learned Sessions Judge.
One could have appreciated the anxiety of the learned
Judge of the High Court that in the circumstances found
by him that the victim attacked was a social and political
worker and therefore the accused should not be granted
bail but we fail to appreciate how that circumstance should
be considered so overriding as to permit interference with a
discretionary order of the learned Sessions Judge granting
bail. The High Court completely overlooked the fact that it
was not for it to decide whether the bail should be granted
but the application before it was for cancellation of the
bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are
necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail. And
the trend today is towards granting bail because it is now
well-settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the
power to grant bail is not to be exercised as if the
punishment before trial is being imposed. The only
material considerations in such a situation are whether the
accused would be readily available for his trial and
whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his
favour by tampering with evidence. The order made by the
High Court is conspicuous by its silence on these two
relevant considerations. It is for these reasons that we
consider in the interest of justice a compelling necessity to
interfere with the order made by the High Court."
9. 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:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21275/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024
undefined
"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."
10. Resultantly, present petition fails and stands dismissed.
Notice discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
