Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Nayanbhai Arvindbhai Thakor on 12 January, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/283/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
283 of 2021
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 285 of 2021
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 286 of 2021
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
NAYANBHAI ARVINDBHAI THAKOR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS ASMITA PATEL APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. NISARG N JAIN(8807) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 12/01/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present petitions under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner State has
prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 24.4.2020 and
12.05.2020 passed by the learned Court below in CR.MA No.68
& 69 of 2020 and No.116 of 2020 whereby the learned Session
Judge has granted regular bail granted to the respondents -
original accused.
2. Learned APP mainly disputes that the condition imposed
upon by the learned Court below while enlarging the accused on
bail has been breached by the accused as the accused had failed
to provide address for the specific period of his stay. She would
therefore submit that petition may be allowed and bail may be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/283/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2024
undefined
cancelled.
3. Having heard the learned APP and perusing the impugned
and considering the fact that since the charge-sheet is filed and
case is committed for trial, the specific condition imposed upon
for the bail period now would not survive. Moreover, the said
aspect has not been challenged before the learned Court below
as submitted by learned APP upon instructions of IO concerned
who is present in the Court today. Thus, no substance is found
in the captioned applications. As held earlier, the petitioner has
failed to point out supervening circumstances, which may
interfere with the fair trial.
4. 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:
'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.'
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/283/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2024
undefined
5. 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."
6. Resultantly, present petitions fail and stand dismissed.
Notice discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
sompura
