Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Krishnarajsinh @ Kanbha Yuvrajsinh ... on 1 January, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15799/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
15799 of 2023
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KRISHNARAJSINH @ KANBHA YUVRAJSINH GOHIL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS ASMITA PATEL, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 01/01/2024
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 13.06.2023
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in
Criminal Misc. Application No.665 of 2023, whereby the learned
Session Judge has granted regular 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, this 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15799/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/01/2024
undefined
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
ought to considered that investigation was not concluded till
passing of impugned order. It is further submitted that offence is
serious in nature as there is clear allegation of extortion of Rs.1
crore from victims. The respondent accused had accepted Rs.38
laks out of Rs.1 crore extortion amount. The said amount of
Rs.38 lakhs were placed at the house of friend namely Hitendra.
It is submitted that amount of Rs.38 lakhs was recovered from
house of Hitendra Mandaliya. Prima facie role of respondent
accused was serious in nature as he played the active role in
commission of crime. Therefore, learned Trial Court ought not to
have granted bail to the respondent - accused. It is further
submitted that learned Trial Court ought to have considered that
there are seven important eye witnesses. It is submitted that if
learned Trial Court had considered the statement of these
witnesses than the Court might not have considered regular bail
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15799/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/01/2024
undefined
application of respondent accused prior to filing of charge sheet.
It is submitted that offence is punishable for the life
imprisonment. It is submitted that respondent along with other
accused made conspiracy to blackmail the victim as they
claimed that they had ample evidence of illegally in dummy
scam. It is submitted that offence is pre-plan offence and
committed with conscious involvement of respondent - accused.
Therefore, it is submitted to allow this petition.
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. It is also required to be noted that in present case, charge
sheet is filed.
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.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
