Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Jeetubhai Chhotubhai Chauhan on 4 January, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12521/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
12521 of 2022
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
JEETUBHAI CHHOTUBHAI CHAUHAN
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS ASMITA PATEL, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 04/01/2024
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 04.03.2022
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajula in
Criminal Misc. Application No.34 of 2022, whereby the learned
Session Judge has granted regular bail to the respondent -
original accused.
2. 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
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/12521/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/01/2024
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.'
3. Heard learned APP for the petitioner State. 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.
3.1. Learned APP submitted that on irrelevant consideration,
learned Sessions Judge has granted bail. It is case under POCSO
Act. Victim was minor at the time of incident. Therefore, her
consent cannot be recorded, yet learned Sessions Judge
overlooked this aspect and granted bail on erroneous
consideration. Therefore, it is submitted that bail is required to
be cancelled.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Raval for respondent has brought on
record letter written by the victim to PI, Rajula Police Station
stating that she having been major eloped with the accused and
contracted marriage on 04.03.2016, which is also registered.
Learned advocate for respondent would further submit that
thereafter, both petitioner and accused both have separated from
marriage life on their own violation and they are now living
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12521/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/01/2024
undefined
separately and settled in their life with spouses. It is further
submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate in
expeditious trial of alleged offence. It is submitted that there is
no supervening circumstances which enroll in trial.
5. This Court has called for status report of trial. Status
report forwarded by learned Additional Sessions, Rajula is taken
on record. According to the report, documentary evidence is
submitted in the Sessions Case and the matter is at the stage of
framing of charge against the accused. In these circumstances,
this Court is of the opinion that if trial is expedited, it would
serve the end of justice more particularly considering typical
facts coming from record. Further what appears that there is no
supervening circumstances which are not conducive in fair trial
or it create hurdle in smooth conduct of trial. Accused in
cooperating in trial and upon instructions, learned advocate for
respondent submits that accused shall continue to remain
present before the concerned Court and cooperate in conducting
trial. 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.
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 20 reads as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12521/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/01/2024
undefined
"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."
7. Resultantly, present petition fails and stands dismissed.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
