Gujarat High Court
Saifullah Motiwala @ Saif Altaf ... vs State Of Gujarat on 14 February, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5561/2021 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
5561 of 2021
==========================================================
SAIFULLAH MOTIWALA @ SAIF ALTAF MOTIWALA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MRS REKHA H KAPADIA(2246) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK A DAVE(3764) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS ASMITA PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 14/02/2024
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 12.02.2021 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Misc.
Application No.745 of 2021, whereby the learned Session Judge
has granted regular bail to the respondent - original accused.
2. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner.
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
SCC 693 and X v State of Telangana, (2018) 16 SCC 511, held as
follows:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5561/2021 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2024
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 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.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner also argued that order
of granting bail to the respondent accused is unjust, contrary to
facts on record and against provision of law. It is submitted that
the learned Sessions Court failed to appreciate the gravity of
offence with which the respondent accused is charged. It is
submitted that offence of extortion is clearly made out against
the respondent accused. It is submitted that learned Trial Court
has committed error of law in releasing the respondent accused
on bail looking to the seriousness and gravity of offence. Thus, it
is submitted to allow the petition.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5561/2021 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2024
undefined
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.
Notice discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
