Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Sammer Jain Hiremath on 12 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18747/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 16/07/2025
Pronounced On : 12/08/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 18747 of 2022
(FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI : Sd/-
=======================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
- √
=======================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SAMMER JAIN HIREMATH
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK SONI APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ANSHIN DESAI, Sr. Adv. with MS MINOO A SHAH(774) for
the Respondent(s) No. 1
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. By filing instant application under Section 439(2)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC"
for short), the applicant - State of Gujarat has
challenged the order dated 18.05.2022 passed by
the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in
Criminal Misc. Application No.2968/2022, whereby
the learned Judge has granted anticipatory bail to
the respondent - accused.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present
application are as under,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18747/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
2.1 An FIR being C.R. No.11210002220107/2022 came
to be registered with Sachin GIDC Police
Station, Surat for the alleged offences
punishable under Sections 304, 336, 337, 338,
284, 277, 278 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal
Code and under Section 15 of the Environment
Protection Act alleging inter alia that on
the day of incident, on account of release of
poisonous chemical from one tanker, 6 persons
have lost their lives and 23 persons have
sustained serious injuries.
2.2 After registration of the FIR, the
investigation was put into motion and,
thereafter on conclusion of the
investigation, the chargesheet came to be
filed, wherein the applicant was shown as
absconding accused no.3.
2.3 Thereafter, the respondent - accused
preferred an application for anticipatory
bail under Section 438 of the CrPC before the
learned Judge, Surat, who by impugned order
dated 18.05.2022, allowed the said
application and released the respondent -
accused on anticipatory bail.
3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.
Hardik Soni for the applicant - State of Gujarat
and learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Anshin Desai
assisted by learned advocate, Ms. Minoo Shah for
the respondent - accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18747/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
4. Learned APP Mr. Soni has referred to the FIR and
submitted that serious allegations have been made
in the FIR against the respondent - accused,
however at the time of deciding the bail
application preferred by the respondent - accused,
those allegations were not properly considered and
thereby the learned Judge has committed an error
in considering the bail application of the
respondent - accused and enlarged him on
anticipatory bail. Learned APP submitted that
because of the conduct of the accused persons, an
persons have lost their valuable lives and 23
persons have sustained serious injuries and the
reason behind occurrence of the said incident was
due to leakage of poisonous gas in the area. He
submitted that during the course of investigation,
it is found out that certain persons have
unauthorizedly tried to dispose of the chemical
wastage in the natural streams and at the time of
disposal of the said wastage, cloud of gas has
been generated, which resulted into chaos and as
stated above, 9 persons have lost their lives,
whereas 23 persons have sustained injuries,
therefore, the aforesaid FIR has been lodged
against the driver and owner of the tanker. He
submitted that after registration of the FIR, the
investigation had commenced and the accused were
arrested and during the investigation, the name of
the respondent - accused has come on surface,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18747/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
therefore, the applicant had filed an application
for anticipatory bail, which was considered by the
learned Judge by allowing it. He submitted that in
fact, the concerned Investigating Officer had
filed an affidavit opposing the said application
and also pointed out material against the
respondent - accused, but it seems that the
learned Judge has not considered the merits of the
case in its true and proper spirit and wrongly
allowed the application preferred by the
respondent - accused.
5. Learned APP has referred to the findings given by
the learned Judge and submitted that the reasons
assigned by the learned Judge are not palatable
one, against the evidence available on record and
not in consonance with the established legal
principle of law, therefore also, on merit, the
said order would not stand for a moment in the eye
of law, therefore, the said order requires to be
quashed and set aside. He submitted that in fact,
the respondent - accused is the main person, who
is Managing Director of Hikal Ltd. and responsible
person to take decision on behalf of the Company
and generally, he used to take decisions on behalf
of the Company with regard to the purchase,
manufacture and disposal of the poisonous chemical
and Sodium Hydrosulfite is byproduct of the said
Company and being a head of the Company and
responsible head person to manage the affairs of
the Company, he is well aware about the chemical
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18747/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
components of by product as well as the effect of
the said chemical upon human body and, therefore
for the purpose of disposing of the said chemical
wastage (byproduct), certain guidelines, which are
framed by the Government, are required to be
strictly adhered with, which in the present case
have been violated. He submitted that the said
Company is stationed at Maharashtra and as per the
norms of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board
(MPCB), for the purpose of disposal of the said
chemical wastage, the costing for the disposal of
the chemical is Rs.71.00 per kg., whereas the
respondent - accused has given work of disposal to
one Sangam Enviro Pvt. Ltd., which is a new
Company in the said field and having less than one
year experience in disposing of the said chemical
wastage and the said Company charged only Rs.23.00
per kg. to dispose the said chemical waste and
thus with a sole intent to just save certain
rupees, the respondent - accused being Managing
Director of the Company had given direction to his
subordinates to enter into transaction with the
said Sangam Enviro Pvt. Ltd. without verifying the
disposal capacity as well as facility of the
endures simply by keeping concentration upon the
benefits of monetary aspect of the Company and by
putting the life of innocent person in a danger
and instead of destroying the said chemical
wastage as per the prescribed norms, the said
Sangam Enviro Pvt. Ltd. had tried to dispose of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18747/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
the said chemical by throwing it in natural
streams, as a result of which, the said chemical
had come in contact with another chemical and
ultimately the said incident had occurred,
therefore, the documents available on record
clearly goes on to show that the present applicant
is directly involved in the commission of crime
and at his instructions, the said work contract
had been entrusted to Sangam Enviro Pvt. Ltd. He
submitted that in fact, it has also come on record
that the said instructions were issued on Zoom
meeting and though all those documents were
brought to the notice of the learned Judge at the
time of deciding the bail application of the
respondent - accused, the learned Judge has not
properly considered it and wrongly allowed the
said application. It is, therefore urged that the
present application may be allowed and the
anticipatory bail granted to the respondent -
accused may be cancelled.
6. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel, Mr.
Anshin Desai assisted by learned advocate, Ms.
Minoo Shah objected the present application with a
vehemence and submitted that it is an admitted
position of fact that the respondent - accused
herein is the Managing Director of Hikal Ltd. and
Sodium Hydrosulfite is byproduct of the said
Company. He submitted that the said Sodium
Hydrosulfite is 82.84% water base product and not
health hazardous and it is the practice of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18747/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
Company that the said byproduct should store in
the tanker and for the purpose of disposal of the
said chemical, services of certain persons are
obtained, who are specialized in disposal of the
said product and after verifying all those
material, contract is to be issued to the said
firm and before that, certificate of experience
has also been verified. He submitted that there
are certain norms and procedures, which are
strictly required to be followed by the Company
and as per the norms, before handing over the said
chemical wastage, a test of the said chemical is
required to be done at the hands of MPCB and after
obtaining analysis report from MPCB, the procedure
for its disposal has been undertaken. He submitted
that the report prepared by the MPCB clearly goes
on to show that pH value of the product is 11.50
and as per the Government norms, pH value of the
product should be between 11.5 to 12.5 and thus,
the said product was not acidic one but it is
basic and if the pH value of the said product is
increased, in that event, it would be acidic. He,
however, submitted that as per the norms
prescribed, the tankers were filled in and
transported by road, e-way bill was also issued in
favour of the Sangam Enviro Pvt. Ltd. and as per
the standard prescribed procedure of MPCB, GPS
device was also affixed upon the said tanker and
the said tanker had reached upto Bharuch and,
thereafter, GPS tract have been changed and,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18747/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
thereafter, chemical wastage is also transferred
in another vehicle as per the case of the
prosecution. He submitted that it is the duty of
the respondent - accused to take track of the
product upto certain area and the Company had
already taken track of root of the said tanker but
thereafter, what had happened, has been transpired
from the police papers and thus, it seems that
there might be product of another chemical, which
was there in the said tanker and/or chemical of
different components was there in the water and at
the time of releasing it in natural stream,
somebody might have discharged another chemical
there and those two chemicals came in contact,
which ultimately resulted into creation of
poisonous gas, as a result of which, the
unfortunate incident had occurred and number of
persons have sustained injuries and thus, role of
the respondent - accused is very limited and
considering the role attributed to the respondent
- accused as also considering the investigation
papers, the learned Judge concerned has exercised
the discretion in favour of the respondent -
accused, which may not be interfered with by this
Hon'ble Court.
7. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in fact, the
applicant has produced certain documents, those
are supplied along with an application for
anticipatory bail preferred before the learned
Sessions Court but those documents are not part
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18747/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
and parcel of the chargesheet reasons best known
to the IO but he would like to bring to the notice
of this Hon'ble Court that in fact, MPCB had taken
a sample from the Company of the applicant and the
analysis report is placed on 21.01.2022, wherein
pH value is about 11.97 and by chemical demand was
66.000 MG/I per unit, whereas when the concerned
IO has collected the sample from the place of
occurrence, pH level was more than 16% and
chemical oxygen demand of the liquid was more than
3 lacs, which clearly goes on to show that the
product, which was found from the place of
occurrence, is different than the product
collected from the Company of the respondent -
accused. He submitted that in fact, MPCB had given
permission to the Company of the respondent -
accused to dispose of the said chemical with
certain conditions and those conditions have been
strictly adhered with and one condition is that
the industry, the byproduct generator, should
ensure that all the vehicles used to transport
byproduct to the vendor, industry to be fitted
with web based GPS system to record the origin to
destination position and shall self monitor the
compliance and submit monthly report to the Board
and the said condition has been complied with by
the Company of the present respondent - accused.
8. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that for the
purpose of disposal of the said product, MPCB has
prepared check-list and if the Hon'ble Court would
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18747/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
make cursory glance upon the said check-list, it
is found out that there is no any SOP prepared by
MPCB for the disposal of the said product and it
is opined that the said product is not hazardous
one. He further submitted that in fact, the
present respondent - accused is released on
anticipatory bail in the year 2022 and he has
interrogation for more than 7 times and he had
gone outside India after obtaining passport from
the concerned court, which has been deposited by
him as one of the conditions. He submitted that
not only that, more than 24 times, he had appeared
before the police authority as and when he was
called upon by the IO, therefore, the respondent -
accused has already extended all necessary
cooperation to the IO. He submitted that in fact
subsequently, the applicant had applied for
deletion of the conditions by filing appropriate
application, which was eventually allowed by this
Hon'ble Court and the passport of the respondent -
accused is also handed over to the respondent -
accused and he was permitted to go outside on a
condition to deposit Rs.25,00,000/- before the
trial court and he has already complied with the
said condition and thus during all these period,
the respondent - accused has not misused liberty
granted by this Hon'ble Court. He further
submitted that in fact, even the bail application
of the co-accused have already been considered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18747/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
Hon'ble Court and even by the trial court also and
now the trial is going on, therefore, at this
stage, considering the above facts of the case,
this is not a fit case, wherein discretion may be
exercised, therefore, the present application may
be rejected.
9. I have considered the rival submissions canvassed
by learned advocates for the parties and also
perused the material available on record.
10. The law regarding cancellation of bail has been
well settled by a catena of judgments by Hon'ble
Surpeme Court to the effect that cancellation of
bail can be ordered only on stronger grounds and
bail already granted should not be cancelled by
the High Court unless it appears that the order
passed by the Sessions Judge granting bail was
arbitrary, illegal and perverse or if the accused
is interfering with the course of justice by
tampering with the evidence. It is also trite law
that the power to cancel bail has to be exercised
with caution and great circumspection in
appropriate cases.
11. While considering degree of burden of prove lie
upon prosecution or complainant/Informant, when an
application for cancellation of bail moved, is not
to the extent of proving by a mathematical
certainty or beyond reasonable doubt but it must
establish its case by showing on a preponderance
of probabilities that accused has attempted or may
attempt to or tamper or has tampered with
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18747/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
witnesses. It may also be proved by test of
balance of probabilities that accused has abused
his liberty or it may show that there is
reasonable apprehension that he will interfere
with course of justice. Mere unfounded
apprehension or self imagined threat by
prosecution or Informant-Complainant would not
justify cancellation of bail, granted to accused.
Here in the present case on hand, the State has
filed present application for cancellation of bail
granted to the respondent - accused on merits
contending that the material and available
available on record were not properly considered
by the learned Judge while granting anticipatory
bail to the respondent - accused and it is not the
case of the prosecution that the respondent -
accused has committed any breach and/or has abused
and misused the liberty granted by the court
concerned.
12. The case on hand pertains to cancellation of bail
granted to the accused, and according to me, in an
application for cancellation of bail, the conduct
subsequent to release on bail and the supervening
circumstances are the relevant factors to be kept
in mind while deciding the cancellation of bail
application. It is no doubt true that the error
being committed by the learned trial judge as well
as the non-consideration of relevant aspects while
setting the accused at liberty are also the
relevant factors to be borne in mind at the time
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18747/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
of deciding cancellation of bail application,
still the same do not have much significance, on
the basis of which, the order granting bail to the
accused can be reversed, as it can be taken into
consideration and determined during the course of
trial. The consideration of cancellation of bail
is different from the consideration for grant of
bail, and the bail can be cancelled only on
existence of cogent and overwhelming
circumstances, but not on re-appreciation of the
facts of the case. It is a settled law that
cancellation of bail should not be by way of
punishment even if prima facie case against the
accused is established.
13. Considering the above facts of the case, before
dwelling into the issue involved in the matter, I
would like to refer to certain decisions, wherein
the aspect of cancellation of bail has been
considered. I would like to refer to the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nitya Nand
Rai Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in 2005
SCC (Cri) 1159, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has observed as under:-
"We think the High Court was not justified
in considering the application for
cancellation of bail as if it was an
application for grant of bail.
Consideration of an application for grant
of bail stands on a different footing than
one for cancellation of bail."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18747/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
14. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of State (Delhi Administration) Vs.
Sanjay Gandhi, reported in (1978) 2 SCC 411, it
has been held as under:
"Rejection of bail, when bail is applied
for is one thing; cancellation of bail
already granted is quite another. It is
easier to reject a bail application in a
non-bailable case than to cancel a bail
granted in such a case. Cancellation of
bail necessarily involves the review of a
decision already made and can by and large
be permitted only if, by reason of
supervening circumstances, it would be no
longer conducive to a fair trial to allow
the accused to retain his freedom during
the trial."
15. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Bhagirathsinh Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in
(1984) 1 SCC 284, has held as under:
"Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances
are necessary for an order seeking
cancellation of the bail and the trend
today is towards granting bail because it
is now well-settled by a catena of
decisions of this Court that the power to
grant bail is not to be exercised as if the
punishment before trial is being imposed.
The only material considerations in such a
situation are whether the accused would be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18747/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
readily available for his trial and whether
he is likely to abuse the discretion
granted in his favour by tampering with
evidence."
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehboob
Dawood Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported
in (2004) 2 SCC 362, has held as under:
"It is trite law that the considerations
for grant of bail and cancellation of bail
stand on different footings.......bail
granted under Section 437 (1) or (2) or
Section 439 (1) can be cancelled were (i)
the accused misuses his liberty by
indulging in similar criminal activity,
(ii) interferes with the course of
investigation (iii) attempts to tamper with
evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens
witnesses or investigation, (v) there is
likelihood of his fleeing to another
country, (vi) attempts to make himself
scarce by going underground or becoming
unavailable to the investigating agency,
(vii) attempts to place himself beyond the
reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are
illustrative and not exhaustive. It must
also be remembered that rejection of bail
stands on one footing but cancellation of
bail is a harsh order because it interferes
with the liberty of the individual and
hence it must not be lightly resorted to."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18747/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
17. In the case of Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Bihar,
reported in (1986) 4 SCC 481, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed that grounds for cancellation
of bail under Sections 437(5) and 439(2) are
identical, namely, bail granted under Section
437(1) or (2) or Section 439(1) can be cancelled
where (i) accused misuses his liberty by indulging
in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with
the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to
tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens
witnesses or indulges in similar activities which
would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is
likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi)
attempts to make himself scarce by going
underground or becoming unavailable to the
investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place
himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. It
was also held that above grounds are illustrative
and not exhaustive. Rejection of bail stands on
one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh
order since it interferes with liberty of
individual and must not be lightly resorted to.
18. In view of the settle proposition of law as laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid
decisions, now coming back to the case on hand, it
is found out that an FIR has been lodged for the
alleged offences alleging inter alia about the
unfortunate incident, wherein 6 persons have lost
their lives and 23 persons have sustained injuries
and in connection with the aforesaid FIR, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18747/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
applicant had filed an application seeking
anticipatory bail, which was eventually considered
by the learned Judge concerned. I have also gone
through the order passed by the learned Judge
concerned and found out that while passing order
granting bail, all relevant aspects germane to the
grant of bail have been considered by learned
Judge, therefore, it cannot be said that the
learned Judge has not taken into consideration the
facts of the case as also material available on
record.
19. I have also considered the averments made in the
application and having considered the same, it is
found out that by filing present application, the
applicant - State has sought cancellation on the
ground that some relevant aspects were not taken
into consideration by the learned judge while
enlarging the accused on bail and it is not the
case of the applicant that the respondent -
accused has violated any condition imposed upon
him and/or misused the liberty granted to him.
However as stated above, I have considered the
findings given and conclusion arrived at by the
learned Judge while passing said order and found
out that each and every aspect has been considered
by the learned Judge and assigned cogent and
convincing reasons, therefore, I do not find any
error and/or perversity in the said order, which
requires interference at the hands of this Hon'ble
Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18747/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
20. Over and above that, FIR is of the year 2022 and
we are in the midst of 2025 and as stated above,
after registration of the FIR, the investigation
was put into motion and, thereafter, chargesheet
was submitted. The accused involved in the present
case have been arrested and, thereafter, released
on bail by the court concerned. Some of them have
been considered for anticipatory bail like the
respondent - accused. Thereafter, the trial has
proceeded further and it is at the stage of
examination of the witnesses and it would like to
conclude within short time.
21. It is required to be noted at this stage, the
Court cannot sit like an appellate
court/revisional court to review the order of the
anticipatory bail. In this case, the applicant -
State has applied for cancellation of bail,
however, as is quite clear from the law on this
point, the bail once granted can only be cancelled
where subsequent to the grant of bail, the accused
has misconducted himself or has misused the
liberty or protection available to him or on the
ground that some new fact has surfaced having
important bearing on the case or where the order
is arbitrary or perverse or without jurisdiction
or is bad in law for some reason of like nature.
As far as the present case is concerned, it is not
the case of the applicant as stated above that the
respondent - accused has misused the liberty
granted to him and/or violated any conditions
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18747/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
imposed upon him. The freedom made available by
grant of bail cannot be taken away on inadequate
grounds or mere assertions or allegation, the
veracity whereof remains to be tested. The
liberty, even though on bail is an important
fundamental right, which cannot be taken away
except by procedure established by law. Moreover,
these facts occurred before grant of anticipatory
bail and those facts had already been brought to
the knowledge of the learned Judge concerned
before he finally allowed the application.
Therefore considering the facts of the case
coupled with the law enunciated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, I find
that there is no material available on record to
show any justification for cancellation of bail
after more than three years and, therefore, order
of cancellation of bail cannot be justified at
this stage.
22. In the result, the present application fails and
is hereby rejected. Notice is discharged.
Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.)
Gautam
