Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Mohamedali Gulamnabi Malek on 19 February, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1514/2021 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
1514 of 2021
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MOHAMEDALI GULAMNABI MALEK
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SH JOSHI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KUNAL S SHAH(5282) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 19/02/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present petition under 439(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner State has prayed to
quash and set aside the order dated 09.11.2020, passed by
the learned 15th Addl. Sessions Judge, Surat, in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 5525 of 2020, whereby the learned Session
Judge has granted regular bail to the respondent - original
accused.
2. Heard learned APP for the petitioner State and learned
Advocate, Mr. Shah, for the respondent-accused.
3. In 'Bhagwan Singh v Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @
Depak', reported in 2023 INSC 7613, the Hon'ble Apex Court
after considering the judgment in case of 'Dolat Ram v State
of Haryana', (1995) 1 SCC 349; 'Kashmira Singh v Duman
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1514/2021 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2024
undefined
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.'
4. Learned APP though strongly argued to cancel the
anticipatory bail on submission that the learned Sessions Court
while granting regular bail did not consider the factors to be
considered for granting or rejecting the bail, and failed to
submit any supervening circumstances being rendered in
conducing to allow fair trial.
5. Learned APP also argued that the learned Sessions Court
has failed to notice that the Respondent-accused is charged for
the offences punishable under Section 465, 466, 468, 471 etc.
of the IPC. However, he failed to point out any supervening
circumstances or breach of any condition in the post-bail
period.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1514/2021 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2024
undefined
6. 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 19 reads as under:-
"19. The learned Special Judge has himself
distinguished cases of the persons who have indulged
into extortion for furthering the activities of the
organization and the persons like the present appellants,
who were government servants, and compelled to
contribute the amount. We, therefore, find that it cannot
be said that the prima facie opinion, as expressed by the
learned Special Judge, could be said to be perverse or
impossible."
8. Resultantly, present petition fails and stands dismissed.
Notice discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
UMESH/-
