Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Pankitbhai Sushilbhai Bachhanbhai ... on 19 January, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18646/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
18646 of 2023
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PANKITBHAI SUSHILBHAI BACHHANBHAI PANDE
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS AV PATEL APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 19/01/2024
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 14.6.2023 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Criminal
Misc. Application No.686 of 2023, whereby the learned Session
Judge has granted regular bail granted to the respondent -
original accused.
2. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18646/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2024
undefined
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.'
3. 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.
4. Having heard the learned APP and considered the grounds
mentioned in the application as also the considering the
impugned order, this Court does not find any good reasons to
interfere with the impugned order. What further appears from
the impugned order that deceased has given written assurance
to the applicant therein that she will not indulge any quarrel and
will live peacefully and this ground is considered for granting
bail by the learned court below. The learned court below has
rightly exercised the discretion in granting bail and thus no
infirmity can be said to have been committed by the learned
court below while grating bail to the accused. 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,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18646/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2024
undefined
which may interfere with the fair trial.
5. It is required to be noted that as far as statement regarding
presumption under section 113-A of the Evidence Act is
concerned, recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Kashibai & Ors. Versus The State Of Karnataka [2023 Live Law
(SC) 149] has held that mere fact of commission of suicide by
itself would not be sufficient for the court to raise the
presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, and to
hold the accused guilty of Section 306 IPC. Relevant
observations made in paragraph 14 reads thus:
"14. Though it is true that as per Section 113A of the
Evidence Act, when the question arises as to whether
commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by
her husband or any relative of her husband, and when it is
shown that she had committed suicide within a period of
seven years from the date of her marriage and that her
husband or such relative of her husband had subjected
her to cruelty, the Court can presume, having regard to the
other circumstances, that such suicide has been abetted
by her husband or such relative of her husband. However,
mere fact of commission of suicide by itself would not be
sufficient for the court to raise the presumption under
Section 113A of the Evidence Act, and to hold the accused
guilty of Section 306 IPC."
6. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18646/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2024
undefined
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."
7. Resultantly, present petition fails and stands dismissed.
Notice discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
sompura
