Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bharat Bhatia on 1 January, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15787/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
15787 of 2023
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BHARAT BHATIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HK PATEL, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 01/01/2024
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 03.07.2023
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad
(Rural) in Criminal Misc. Application No.2234 of 2023, whereby
the learned Session Judge has granted anticipatory bail granted
to the respondent - original accused.
2. Heard learned APP for the petitioner State.
3. In Bhagwan Singh v Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak
reported in 2023 INSC 7613, this 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/15787/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/01/2024
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 APP though strongly argued to cancel the
anticipatory bail on submission that the learned Sessions Court
while granting anticipatory 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 APP also argued that the learned Sessions Court
ought to considered that complainant's nephew took loan of
Rs.25,39,45,319/- and the amount paid for repayment of loan is
more than the amount qua the loan i.e. Rs.38,20,97,000/-
which was transferred to the accused person. Even after this
accused person demanded Rs.3,37,50,000/- from the deceased
and nephew of the complainant. It is submitted that the learned
Trial Court ought to considered that it is shown in the bank
statement that the money more than the repayment was
transferred to the present accused and in addition after giving
threats the nephew of the complainant and the deceased
transferred an amount of Rs. 4,47,00,000/- in the account of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15787/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/01/2024
undefined
S.K enterprise and other bank account on different dates the
accused person charged much high rate of interest even though
the company was a non-banking finance company and they
charged higher interest fixed by the RBI. It is further submitted
that the learned Trial Court have ought to considered that the
threat was increasing day by day and it is also averred that two
unknown person's had come to kidnap the deceased and his son
and threaten family members for which stress and pressure to
pay was unbearable to deceased and hence he committed suicide
by writing suicide note and recording video about how the
accused persons were threatening him for more money. It is also
submitted that the learned Trial Court ought to considered that
there are CCTV footage in which the accused person were
entering in complainants office, not only this but the accused
persons visited at the house of deceased and gave threats to pay
the amount to them. Therefore, it is submitted to allow this
petition.
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 20 reads as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15787/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/01/2024
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."
8. Resultantly, present petition fails and stands dismissed.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
