Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Roshanaara Gulammurtaza Mola on 15 January, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6236/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
6236 of 2019
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
ROSHANAARA GULAMMURTAZA MOLA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS ASMITA PATEL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Applicant(s) No.
1
MR. SOEB R. BHOHARIA(2205) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
VALIMOHAMMED PATHAN(6383) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 15/01/2024
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 25.2.2019 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in
Criminal Misc. Application No.1309 of 2019, whereby the
learned Session Judge has granted bail to the respondent -
original accused.
2. Heard learned APP for the petitioner State. Learned APP
would submit that the learned Sessions Court has granted bail t
the accused without assigning any cogent and valid reasons and
without appreciating the evidence on record and therefore, the
impugned order is a non-speaking order. She would further
submit that not only the respondent accused has played active
role, but also facilitated other main accused in commission of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6236/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/01/2024
undefined
the offence. She would further submit that the name of the
respondent was specifically mentioned by the complainant at the
time of lodgment of the complaint and that the accused has
played active role in commission of the offence. Therefore,
considering the seriousness of the nature of the offence and the
role played by the respondent accused, learned APP submits to
allow this petition.
3. In Bhagirathsinh S/O Mahipat Singh ... vs State Of
Gujarat [AIR 1984 SC 372], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary
for an order seeking cancellation of the bail. In paragraph 8 it
has been observed thus:
"8. In our opinion, the learned Judge appears to have misdirected
himself while examining the question of directing cancellation of
bail by interfering with a discreationary 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 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 are 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 in 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."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6236/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/01/2024
undefined
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.'
5. Learned APP 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.
6. Learned APP also argued that the learned Sessions Court
ought to have considered that the complainant and other victims
are doing the business of the plywood and the accused had
purchased goods worth Rs.2,88,90,746/- and thereafter, the
accused did not repay the amount of the victims with a mala fide
intention with clear understanding of defrauding of money of the
victims. He would further submit that the after gaining trust,
the accused purchased huge amount of goods duping the victims
by not repaying their legitimate bills and thus, systematic fraud
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6236/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/01/2024
undefined
has been committed and therefore, it is urged to allow this
petition and to cancel the bail granted to the accused.
7. 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.
8 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."
9. Resultantly, present petition fails and stands dismissed.
Rule discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
