Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Ranabhai Mahadevbhai Ayar on 11 January, 2024

                                                                                           NEUTRAL CITATION




      R/CR.MA/6638/2019                                    ORDER DATED: 11/01/2024

                                                                                            undefined




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
                         6638 of 2019
                            With
          R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 841 of 2019
==========================================================
                              STATE OF GUJARAT
                                    Versus
                          RANABHAI MAHADEVBHAI AYAR
==========================================================
 R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
                            6638 of 2019
Appearance:
MS AV PATEL, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DIVYESH SEJPAL(1322) for the Respondent(s)
           R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 841 of 2019
Appearance:
MR ASHISH DAGLI, for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DIVYESH SEJPAL(1322) for the Respondent(s)
MS AV PATEL, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the State
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                                Date : 11/01/2024

                             COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner-State has preferred Criminal Misc. Application (For Cancellation of Bail) No. 6638 of 2019, under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 20.12.2018, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kutch at Bhuj, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1027 of 2018, whereby the learned Addl. Session Judge, Bhuj-Kutch, has granted anticipatory bail to the Respondent- original accused.

1.1 Criminal Misc. Application No. 841 of 2019 is filed by the First Informant, who acted as a whistle blower, seeking the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/6638/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/01/2024

undefined

reliefs, as mentioned in Paragraph-1, herein above.

1.2 Since, both the matters arise from the same complaint and as the reliefs prayed for therein are also identical, both the matters are taken-up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard learned APP, Ms. Patel, for the Respondent-State and learned Advocate, Mr. Dagli, appearing for the First Informant, whereas, learned Advocate, Mr. Sejpal, appearing for the Respondent-accused has filed sick-note, today.

3. Learned APP as well as the learned Advocate, Mr. Dagli, for the respective petitioners, 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, but, they have failed to submit any supervening circumstances being rendered it in conducing to allow fair trial.

4. It was also argued that the learned Sessions Court has failed to appreciate that the Respondent-accused, herein, has committed a serious offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. They would further submit that the respondent-accused, during the official discharge of his duties as a Public Servant obtained illegal gratifications between 01.01.2000 to 31.03.2012, and has made huge financial investments to the tune of Rs.1,97,99,322/- in the name of his family members and dependents. They would

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/6638/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/01/2024

undefined

further submit that as the respondent-accused possesses the properties, which are disproportionate to his income, these petitions be allowed.

5.In 'Bhagwan Singh Vs. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak', reported in 2023 INSC 7613, this Court after considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of 'Daulat Ram Vs. State of Haryana', (1995) 1 SCC 349; 'Kashmira Singh Vs. Duman Singh', (1996) 4 SCC 693 and 'X Vs. 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."

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 petitioners have failed to point out supervening circumstances, which may interfere with the fair trial. Here, it is pertinent to note that the FIR in question is filed at the fag end of the official carrier of the Respondent-accused,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/6638/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/01/2024

undefined

i.e. when the Respondent-accused was almost on the verge of retirement. Further, it may be noted that, though, the FIR in question was lodged as back as in the year 2018 and though, almost five years have elapsed, the investigation is not over, yet. Even the Coordinate Bench of this Court also has noted in its order dated 04.08.2023 that the concerned IO is in the process of filing of FIR, after once the sanctioned is granted by the competent authorities. From the record, it is also revealed that some mathematical calculations were made to infer that the Respondent-accused possesses properties, disproportionate to his income. It is also noteworthy that there is no specific allegation that the Respondent-accused has purchased any immovable property, out of the amount, allegedly received by him towards illegal gratification.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of 'Bhagirath Sinh S/O Mahipat Singh Judeja Vs. State Of Gujarat', reported in AIR 1984 SC 372, has observed that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed as under at Paragraph-8, thereof;

"In our opinion, the learned Judge appears to have misdirected himself while examining the question of directing cancellation of bail by interfering with a discretionary order made by the learned Sessions Judge. One could have appreciated the anxiety of the learned Judge of the High Court that in the circumstances found by him that the victim attacked was a social and political

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/6638/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/01/2024

undefined

worker and therefore the accused should not be, granted bail but we fail to appreciate how that circumstance should be considered so overriding as to permit interference with a discretionary order of the learned Sessions Judge granting bail. The High Court completely overlooked the fact that it was not for it to decide whether the bail should be granted but the application before it was for cancellation of the bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances all necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail. And the trend today is towards granting bail because it is now well-settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the power to grant bail is not to be exercised as if the punishment before trial is being imposed. The only material considerations in such a situation are whether the accused would be readily available for his trial and whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted ill his favour by tampering with evidence. The order made by the High Court is conspicuous by its silence on these two relevant considerations. It is for these reasons that we consider in the interest of justice a compelling necessity to interfere with the order made by the High Court."

7.1 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/6638/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/01/2024

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."