Gujarat High Court
Thakor Anilji Gandaji vs State Of Gujarat on 8 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6962/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 6962 of 2025
==========================================================
THAKOR ANILJI GANDAJI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. YOGENDRA THAKORE(3975) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MONALI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 08/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed under Section 483 of the
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhit, 2023, for regular bail in
connection with FIR being C.R.NO. 11206075230884 of 2023
registered with Visnagar Town Police Station, Mehsana for
the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471,
120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the
in present case, the applicant herein has been arrested on
21.08.2024 and since then he is in custody. The offences alleged
against the present applicant being triable by the Court of
Magistrate. It is incumbent upon the concerned Court to
conclude the trial within a period of 60 days from the date the
case of prosecution was opened. In present case, the trial has
not concluded within a period of 60 days from the date of its
commencement for no fault on the part of the present applicant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6962/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/04/2025
undefined
The Hon'ble Apex Court in its order dated 18.02.2025 passed in
case of Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. The State of Chhatisgarh
in Criminal Appeal No.818 of 2025 has observed that if the trial
is not concluded within a period of 60 days for no fault on the
part of accused under the provision of Section 437(6) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, it is an unfettered right accrued in favour
of the accused for being enlarged on bail. He, therefore,
submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the
present applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions.
3. Learned APP has opposed the present application, inter
alia, contending that this is 3 rd successive bail application filed
by the present applicant for bail and there being no change in
circumstances, the application should be dismissed.
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the
material available on record. In present case, the investigation is
over and charge-sheet has been filed. At the outset, it is required
to be noted that earlier, the applicant had preferred Criminal
Misc. Application No.19162 of 2024, which was allowed to be
withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 09.10.2024 since after
hearing the learned advocate for the applicant, this Court was
not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant.
Thereafter, the applicant herein had preferred another
application being Criminal Misc. Application No.2478 of 2025.
The said application was dismissed by this Court vide order
dated 06.02.2025. While dismissing the said application, this
Court had made following observations:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6962/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/04/2025
undefined
"4. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the
material available on record. At the outset, it is required to be
noted that the applicant had earlier preferred an application being
Criminal Misc. Application No.19162 of 2024, which was allowed
to be withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 09.10.2024.
Learned advocate for the applicant is not in a position to show any
change in circumstances after the withdrawal of the earlier
application. So far as the stage of trial is concerned, it is informed
that out of 11 witnesses, 4 witnesses have already been
examined. The applicant herein has been arrested in connection
with the present offence on 21.08.2024. Having regard to these
facts, no case is made out to release the present applicant on bail.
Hence, the present application stands dismissed."
5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that as on date, out
of 11 witnesses cited by the prosecution in the charge-sheet, 8
witnesses have already been examined. Thus, the trial of the
offence is in progress.
6. So far as the aspect of merits is concerned, the applicant
herein is alleged to have asked the other co-accused to make
phone calls to the first informant and the victims alluring them
of higher returns upon investments made by them in the stock
market and thus, the first informant and other witnesses had
invested their hard earned money in the stock market.
7. So far as the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu (supra) is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the very order of regular bail has observed some of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6962/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/04/2025
undefined
reasons, which were very relevant for rejection of regular bail
under 437(1) & (2) of the Code may also be relevant for rejection
of the application under sub-section 6 of the said section, in a
given circumstance. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed
that "We do not subscribe to the theory that factors which are
relevant for rejection of regular bail, at the initial stage are not at
all relevant for rejection of application under sub-section (6) of
the said Section."
8. As discussed herein above, the earlier two applications
filed by the applicant have been withdrawn and dismissed by
this Court. Having regard to the same, no case is made out to
release the present applicant on bail. Hence, the present
application stands dismissed.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
GIRISH
