Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Kiritsinh Dolubhai Jadeja on 29 January, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23110/2021 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
23110 of 2021
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KIRITSINH DOLUBHAI JADEJA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HK PATEL, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ANKUR Y OZA(2821) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 29/01/2024
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 30.10.2021
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in
Criminal Misc. Application No.200 of 2021, whereby the learned
Session Judge has granted regular bail to the respondent -
original accused.
2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
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:
'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/23110/2021 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2024
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.'
4. Learned APP though strongly argued to cancel the regular
bail on submission that the learned Sessions Court while
granting regular 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. This Court finds no circumstances to adjudge the
impugned order as unjust and contrary to the settled principles
of law. The petitioner has failed to point out supervening
circumstances, which may interfere with the fair trial.
6. Pursuant to order dated 15.01.2023, report dated
25.01.2024 is forwarded by learned 7th Additional District
Judge, Vadodara at Karjan. Same is taken on record. It is stated
in the report that 37 witnesses are examined. It is also to be
noted that charge under section 201 and 114 of IPC is registered
against the respondent. Without delving further into merits of
the case, no case is made to cancel the bail granted to the
respondent.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23110/2021 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2024
undefined
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
