Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Hasmatali Makhdumali Mirza on 18 January, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/260/2021 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
260 of 2021
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
HASMATALI MAKHDUMALI MIRZA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HK PATEL, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MA KHARADI(1032) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,10,11,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 18/01/2024
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 23.04.2020
passed by the learned 7 th Additional Sessions Judge,
Khambhat, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 100 of 2020,
whereby, the learned Session Judge has granted regular bail to
the private respondents - original accused.
2. Learned APP for the petitioner-State submitted that the
concerned trial Court did not consider the grounds, while
granting bail to the Respondent-accused, properly. It was
submitted that the trial Court failed to take into consideration
the fact that, when the impugned order was passed on
23.04.2020, the investigation was still going on. The concerned
trial Court also failed to take into consideration the nature of
the offence, which is very grave. The trial Court also appears to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/260/2021 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2024
undefined
have failed in appreciating the material on record in its proper
perspective. It was, therefore, submitted that since the
impugned order is passed on irrelevant and extraneous
grounds, this petition be allowed.
3. On the other hand, learned Advocate, Mr. Kharadi,
appearing for the Respondents-accused supported the order
passed by the concerned trial Court and submitted that the
trial Court has rightly exercised the discretion in favour of the
Respondents-accused, after assessing and examining the role
alleged to be played by them in the commission of the offence
in question. It was submitted that, while granting bail, the trial
Court examined and took into consideration, the well settled
principles of law. It was submitted that, pursuant to the
passing of the order dated 23.04.2020, no breach of condition
is reported qua the Respondents-accused, till date. It was,
therefore, prayed that this application be dismissed.
4. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the
material on record. Having heard the rival submissions of the
learned Advocates for the parties, it appears that learned APP
failed to point out any substantial ground, which can be made
the basis for setting aside the order dated 23.04.2020, passed
by the trial Court. From a perusal of the impugned order, it
appears that the concerned trial Court has discussed, in detail,
the role played by the Respondents-accused herein in the
commission of the alleged offence.
4.1 In 'Bhagwan Singh Vs. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/260/2021 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2024
undefined
Depak', reported in 2023 INSC 7613, the Apex Court after
considering judgment in case of 'Dolat Ram Vs. State of
Haryana', (1995) 1 SCC 349; 'Kashmira Singh Vs. 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."
4.2 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, he
failed to point out any supervening circumstances being
rendered it in conducing to allow fair trial.
4.3 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/260/2021 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2024
undefined
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."
5. Resultantly, present petition fails and stands DISMISSED.
Rule is discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
UMESH/-
