Bharatbhai Punabhai Rathod vs State Of Gujarat
2024 Latest Caselaw 3931 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Bharatbhai Punabhai Rathod vs State Of Gujarat on 1 May, 2024

                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




     R/CR.MA/5960/2024                            ORDER DATED: 01/05/2024

                                                                               undefined




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL)
                   NO. 5960 of 2024

==========================================================
                         BHARATBHAI PUNABHAI RATHOD
                                    Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SAMIR B GOGDA(11306) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SM JOSHI, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                              Date : 01/05/2024
                                ORAL ORDER

1. By way of the present petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vanthali in Criminal Misc. Application No.38 of 2024, whereby the learned Session Judge has granted anticipatory bail to the respondent - original accused.

2. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner though strongly argued to cancel the bail on submission that the learned Sessions Court while granting 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5960/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2024

undefined

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner also argued that the learned Sessions Court ought to have considered that the learned Sessions Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent No.2 herein has committed serious offence under the provisions of the IPC. He would further submit that the respondent No.2 has actively participated in the offence which led the victim to commit suicide.

5. 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 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.'

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. Respondent No.2 is 77 years old lady. Even otherwise the allegations levelled in the FIR against the respondent No.2 are general in nature. They are not sufficient to constitute the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5960/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2024

undefined

offence under Section 107 of IPC. There is no abetment which could be seen prima facie from the material available on record.

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) GAURAV J THAKER