Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rasubha Habhaji Sodha on 8 January, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16050/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
16050 of 2022
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RASUBHA HABHAJI SODHA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS AV PATEL, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR BN LIMBACHIA(3454) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
NISHITH K JOSHI(9193) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 08/01/2024
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 13.05.2022
passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Kachchh
at Bhuj, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 567 of 2022, whereby
the learned Session Judge has granted regular bail to the
respondents - original accused.
2. Learned APP for the petitioner-State submitted that the
concerned trial Court did not consider the grounds, while
granting bail to the Respondent-accused, properly. It was
submitted that the trial Court failed to take into consideration
the fact that, when the impugned order was passed on
13.05.2022, the investigation was till going on. The concerned
trial Court also failed to take into consideration the nature of
the offence, which is very grave. The trial Court also appears to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16050/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
undefined
have failed in appreciating the material on record in its proper
perspective. It was, therefore, submitted that since the
impugned order is passed on irrelevant and extraneous
grounds, this petition be allowed.
3. On the other hand, learned Advocate, Mr. Limbachiya,
appearing for the Respondents-accused supported the order
passed by the concerned trial Court and submitted that the
trial Court has rightly exercised the discretion in favour of the
Respondents-accused, after assessing and examining the role
alleged to be played by them in the commission of the offence
in question. It was submitted that, while granting bail, the trial
Court examined and took into consideration, the well settled
principles of law. It was submitted that, pursuant to the
passing of the order dated 13.05.2022, the main accused also
has been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 20.09.2022, passed in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 13580 of 2022. It was, therefore, prayed that
this application be dismissed.
4. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the
material on record. Having heard the rival submissions of the
learned Advocates for the parties, it appears that learned APP
failed to point out any substantial ground, which can be made
the basis for setting aside the order dated 13.05.2022, passed
by the trial Court. From a perusal of the impugned order, it
appears that the concerned trial Court has discussed, in detail,
the role played by the Respondents-accused herein in the
commission of the alleged offence and after referring to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16050/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
undefined
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'State of
Rajasthan Vs. Balchand', wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has observed that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an
exception and that refusal of bail is a restriction on the
personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21
of the Constitution of India, has exercise discretion in favour of
the Respondents-accused.
4.1 In 'Bhagwan Singh Vs. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @
Depak', reported in 2023 INSC 7613, the Apex Court after
considering judgment in case of 'Dolat Ram Vs. State of
Haryana', (1995) 1 SCC 349; 'Kashmira Singh Vs. 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 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."
4.2 Learned APP though strongly argued to cancel the
anticipatory bail on submission that the learned Sessions
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16050/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
undefined
Court, while granting anticipatory bail did not consider the
factors to be considered for granting or rejecting the bail, she
failed to point out any supervening circumstances being
rendered it in conducing to allow fair trial.
4.3 It is to be noted that the main accused, i.e. Mahavirsinh
Chatursinh Sodha and Jethaji @ Babo Abhaji Sodha, have
already been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 20.09.2022, passed in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 13580 of 2022 who, according to the
prosecution, played the key role in the commission of the
alleged offence and alleged to have inflicted axe blows on the
injured witness. There is nothing on the record to show that
the Petitioner-State has preferred any application for
cancellation of the bail granted to the main accused persons.
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-State has failed to point
out supervening circumstances, which may interfere with the
fair trial. It is also required to be noted that in present case,
charge sheet is already filed.
4.4 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16050/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
undefined
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."
5. Resultantly, present petition fails and stands DISMISSED.
Rule is discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
UMESH/-
