Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Shailendrasingh Sureshsingh ... on 5 February, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2488/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
2488 of 2019
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SHAILENDRASINGH SURESHSINGH BHADORIYA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HK PATEL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 05/02/2024
ORAL ORDER
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 12.12.2018
passed by the learned Principal District Judge and Special
Judge, Jamkhambhaliya in Criminal Misc. Application No.1072
of 2018, whereby the learned Session Judge has granted bail to
the respondent - original accused.
2. Heard learned APP for the petitioner State.
3. In Bhagirathsinh S/O Mahipat Singh ... vs State Of
Gujarat [AIR 1984 SC 372], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary
for an order seeking cancellation of the bail. In paragraph 8 it
has been observed thus:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2488/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
"8. In our opinion, the learned Judge appears to have
misdirected himself while examining the question of
directing cancellation of bail by interfering with a
discreationary 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."
4. 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/2488/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2024
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.'
5. 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.
6. Having heard the learned APP and considered the grounds
mentioned in the application as also the considering the
impugned order, this Court does not find any good reasons to
interfere with the impugned order. The learned court below has
rightly exercised the discretion in granting bail and thus no
infirmity can be said to have been committed by the learned
court below while grating bail to the accused. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2488/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
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."
8. Resultantly, present petition fails and stands dismissed.
Notice discharged.
9. Since the trial has commenced as per the report of the
learned trial Court, it is expected from the learned trial Court to
complete the case as early as possible.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
