Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Hirenbhai Dilipbhai Trivedi on 5 February, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22530/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
22530 of 2019
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 22546 of 2019
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 22553 of 2019
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 22536 of 2019
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 22531 of 2019
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 22537 of 2019
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 22534 of 2019
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
HIRENBHAI DILIPBHAI TRIVEDI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HK PATEL, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.D K.PUJ(3836) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 (in CR.M.A. No. 22530/2019)
MR TATTVAM PATEL, for the Respondent(s) No. 1 (in CR.M.A. Nos. 22536
& 22534 / 2019)
MR MAULIK SHETH, for the Respondent(s) No. 1 (in CR.M.A. No.
22531/2019)
MR RJ GOSWAMI, for the Respondent(s) No. 1 (in CR.M.A. No. 22537/2019)
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 05/02/2024
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. Since, all these matters arise from the common FIR, at
the request of the learned Advocates for the parties, they are
taken-up for hearing together and being disposed of by this
common judgment and order.
1.1 By way of the present petition under Section 439(2) of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22530/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner-State has
prayed to quash and set aside the different orders passed by
the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad
(Rural) (in brief, 'trial Court'), granting bail to the Respondents-
original accused in connection with the FIR, being C.R. No. I-
112 of 2019, registered with Sarkhej Police Station,
Ahmedabad, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B)
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Heard learned APP for the petitioner-State and learned
Advocate, Mr. Puj, for Respondent No.1 in Cr.M.A. No. 22530 of
2019, learned Advocate, Mr. Patel, appearing for the
Respondents in Cr.M.A. Nos. 22534 & 22536 of 2019, learned
Advocate, Mr. Sheth, for Respondent No.1 in Cr.M.A. No. 22531
of 2019 and learned Advocate, Mr. Goswami, for Respondent
No.1 in Cr.M.A. No. 22537 of 2019. Though served, none
appears for the respondents-original accused in Cr.M.A. Nos.
22546 and 22553 of 2019.
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22530/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
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 bail did not consider the factors to be
considered for granting or rejecting the bail, he 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 respondents-original accused, in
connivance of some of the accused, who were government
officers, illegally grabbed the government land and therefore,
these matters may be allowed.
6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and
from a perusal of the material on record, it is revealed that
even before the registration of the FIR in question, the
concerned Civil Court has held in favour of the concerned
accused persons, by observing that they have become owners
of the land in question by way of adverse possession. There is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22530/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
a vast difference between rejecting bail, at an earlier stage,
and to cancel a bail, already granted by a competent Court.
The parameters for both are very different. 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 petitions fail and stands dismissed.
Notice / Rule is discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
UMESH/-
