Gujarat High Court
Shailesh Chauthaji Thakore vs State Of Gujarat on 5 January, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8972/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
8972 of 2022
==========================================================
SHAILESH CHAUTHAJI THAKORE
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
HARSHESH R KAKKAD(7813) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HK PATEL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 05/01/2024
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 18.2.2022 passed by the
learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Viramgam in Criminal
Misc. Application No.30 of 2022, whereby the learned Session
Judge has granted regular bail to the respondent - original
accused.
2. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner.
3. 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. He would further submit that the present
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8972/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/01/2024
undefined
respondent has breached condition No.6 of order dated
18.2.2022 pass in Criminal Misc. Application No.30 of 2022 and
is indulged in some kind of activities subsequent to the
impugned offences and as a result, two offences have been
registered against the respondent accused; one annexed at
Annexure C and another is produced on the record today. Thus,
it is submitted that the respondent accused is a habitual
offender and is time and again indulged in some kind of offences
and is passing threat. He would further submit that the learned
session court has not taken due care of the antecedents
registered against the respondent accused while enlarging him
on regular bail. Thus since the impugned bail is on irrelevant
consideration and thereafter as the respondent accused has
breached the condition, on both the accounts, bail granted to the
petitioner should be cancelled.
4. I have also heard learned APP. Though served, none
appears for the respondent accused.
5. 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:
'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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8972/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/01/2024
undefined
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.'
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:-
"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.
Rule discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
