Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rajendrabhai Chimanlal Joshi on 2 January, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/304/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
304 of 2021
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAJENDRABHAI CHIMANLAL JOSHI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS ASMITA PATEL, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 02/01/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present petitions under Section 439(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner State has
prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 13.02.2020
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palanpur in
Criminal Misc. Application No.74 of 2020, whereby the learned
Session Judge has granted anticipatory bail to the respondent -
original accused.
2. Heard learned APP for the petitioner State.
3. In Bhagwan Singh v Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak
reported in 2023 INSC 7613, the 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/304/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/01/2024
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. Learned APP also argued that the learned Sessions Court
has failed to consider that this is not first offence registered
against respondent but there is criminal history and based upon
such history, learned Trial Court ought not to have granted
anticipatory bail to the respondent. It is also submitted that
learned Trial Court ought to have considered that complainant
had given written complaint before the concerned police station
against inappropriate publication by respondent in the
newspaper. It is also submitted that learned Trial Court has not
considered the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Y.S.Jaganmohan Reddy v/s. CBI (Criminal Appeal
No.730 of 2013). Therefore, it is submitted to allow the petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/304/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/01/2024
undefined
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 petitioner has failed to point out
supervening circumstances, which may interfere with the fair
trial.
7. 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."
8. Resultantly, present petition fails and stands dismissed.
9. Learned advocate for the respondent - accused submitted
that trial is going on. Considering the submission, learned Trial
Court is directed to decide the matter as expeditiously as
possible preferably within 6 months from the date of receipt of
present order.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
