Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Hastisinh Narayansinh Rajpurohit on 8 January, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/247/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
247 of 2021
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
HASTISINH NARAYANSINH RAJPUROHIT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HK PATEL APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 08/01/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present petition under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner State has
prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 3.7.2020 passed
by the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Ankleshwar in Criminal
Misc. Application No.280 of 2020, whereby the learned Session
Judge has granted anticipatory bail granted to the respondent -
original accused.
2. Heard learned APP for the petitioner State. Though served,
none appears for the respondent.
3. 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/247/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
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. 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/247/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
undefined
6. 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:-
"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."
7. Resultantly, present petition fails and stands dismissed.
Notice discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
sompura
