Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Jayesh Babubhai @ Balubhai Danicha ... on 12 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8457/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
8457 of 2023
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
JAYESH BABUBHAI @ BALUBHAI DANICHA (MAHESHWARI)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK SONI APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DHRUV H CHAUDHARY(12328) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 12/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By filing instant application, the applicant - State has
preferred present application for cancellation of regular
bail granted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anjar-
Kutch by an order dated 10.01.2023 passed in Criminal
Misc. Application No.462/2022.
2. Learned APP Mr. Soni submits that this is a specific case
of the prosecution that the so-called unfortunate incident
has occurred on 14.11.2020, and on the same day FIR
has been registered against unknown person, pursuance
to which investigation commenced, and then after, during
the course of investigation, investigating officer
concerned has collected certain material which involves
the respondent/accused in commission of crime, and on
the basis of which the respondent/accused was
apprehended, and then after investigation was carried
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8457/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
out, and ultimately at the end of the day, sufficient
material has been collected by the investigating officer,
and chargesheet has been submitted before the
competent court. During the interregnum period,
respondent/accused had approached the trial court for
seeking bail, and on 10.01.2023, his bail application had
been considered by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge,
Anjar-Kutch, by imposing certain terms and conditions.
The State is aggrieved with the said order as the court
concerned has not considered the material available on
record in true spirit and proper prospective, and at the
time of entertaining the bail application undue weight is
given to the non-important documents, and therefore,
prima-facie it seems that perversity is found out in the
operative part of the order. He further submits that the
order passed by the trial court is not just and based upon
the sound principle of law, and therefore, requires to be
quash and set aside by allowing the present application.
3. The present application is strongly opposed by the
learned advocate Mr. Dhruv Chaudhary who appears for
the respondent/accused submits that, in fact, as per the
case of the prosecution, the so-called incident has
occurred on 14.11.2020, and on the same day FIR was
filed against the guilty person wherein name of the
respondent herein was not mentioned, in fact, FIR was
filed against unknown person, and then after, during the
course of investigation certain ample evidences have
been collected by the investigating officer and on the
basis of which respondent herein was apprehended by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8457/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
the investigation officer. It is an admitted position of fact
that nobody had seen the said incident through his bare
eyes, and therefore, entire case of the prosecution hinges
upon the circumstantial evidences. He further submits
that at the time of entertaining the bail application of the
applicant (respondent herein), the trial court has
considered all those documents/materials which have
been placed by the investigating officer, and said facts
are clearly fortified from the operative part of the order
and/or reasoning assigned by the court concerned. He
further submits that it is an admitted position of fact that
at the time of entertaining the bail application of the
applicant/respondent, his age was 19 years and
consideration the period of incarceration spent by the
applicant/respondent, bail application was entertained by
the trial court by imposing certain terms and conditions.
He further submits that, in fact, then after during the
interregnum period much water has already been flown
under the bridge. He further submits that it is an
admitted position of fact that the respondent herein has
not breached any terms and conditions imposed by the
Hon'ble court and regularly attends the court
proceedings, and trial has substantially got progressed
and almost all witnesses have been examined, even
investigating officer's evidence was recorded and further
statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
has been recorded, and matter is kept for submissions of
the arguments by the counsels of the rival parties.
Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhary has put reliance upon
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8457/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dolat
Ram Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (1995) 1 SCC
349 as well as Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Bihar
reported in (1986) 4 SCC 481. Learned advocate has
also put a copy of status of the trial which is directed to
be taken on record. Considering the above-stated factual
aspects of the matter, at this stage, the cancellation of
bail application preferred by the State is not required to
be entertained.
4. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and
having gone through the material available on record
including the impugned order, what appears is that
cancellation of bail is sought only on the ground that the
learned Judge concerned has not considered the material
available on record in true and proper spirit.
5. It is required to be noted that the powers of cancellation
of bail are to be exercised only in cases, where
overwhelming material or grounds are made out for so
doing and the bail granted by the competent Courts
cannot be canceled at the whims and caprices of the first
informant. In short, the procedure of cancellation of bail
cannot be allowed to be made a tool in the hands of the
first informants, so as to get the desired results.
6. Thus considering the above aspect, if the facts of the
present case are examined, in that event, it is found out
that the State has sought cancellation of bail granted to
the respondent/accused on the ground that important
material has not been properly considered by the learned
Judge while deciding the present application. However
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8457/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
having carefully examining the findings given and
conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge, it is found out
that all the facts of the case have been properly
considered and discussed in the impugned order. Here in
the present case, it further transpires that after being
released on bail, the respondent herein has not breached
any terms and conditions imposed by the court
concerned and regularly attends the court proceedings,
and trial has substantially got progressed and almost all
witnesses have been examined, even investigating
officer's evidence was recorded and further statement of
the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been
recorded, and matter is kept for submissions of the
arguments by the counsels of the rival parties. Therefore,
at this stage, I am of the considered view that no
interference is required in the impugned order.
7. In case of Dolat Ram (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed in Paragraph No.4 as under :-
"4. Rejection of bail in a non- bailable case at the initial
stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to
be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very
cogent and overwhelming circumstances are
necessary for an order directing the cancellation of
the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the
grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative
and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to
interfere with the due course of administration of
Justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course
of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the
accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court,
on the basis of material placed on the record of the
possibility of the accused absconding is yet another
reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However,
bail once granted should not be cancelled in a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8457/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
mechanical manner without considering whether any
supervening circumstances have NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13992/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2024
undefined rendered it no longer conducive to a fair
trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by
enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These
principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High
Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already
granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked
the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting
bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and
the cancellation of bail already granted."
8. Thus in the case of Dolat Ram (supra), it has been held
that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a
mechanical manner without considering whether any
supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer
conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his
freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the
trial.
9. In the case of X Vs. State of Telangana, reported in
2018 (16) SCC 511, the Hon'ble Supreme Court Court
has held that bail once granted should not be cancelled
unless a cogent case based on a supervening event has
been made out.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Gurcharan Singh
& Ors. Vs. State (Delhi Administration), reported in
(1978) 1 SCC 118, has held two paramount
considerations, while considering petition for grant of bail
in a non-bailable offence, apart from the seriousness of
the offence, there is likelihood of the accused fleeing
from justice and his tampering with prosecution
witnesses. Both of them relate to ensure a fair trial of the
case. Therefore, to ensure a fair trial, all considerations
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8457/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
are explored while granting bail. Thus, when the question
is raised on the power to cancel bail, the same has to be
exercised with great care and circumspection. Cogent
and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an
order seeking cancellation of bail.
11. At this stage, I would also like to refer to the decision in
the case of Merubhai Ramabhai Khodiyatar (Hun)
Rabari Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2021 (2) GLR
1175, wherein in Paragraph No.16.1, it was held as
under :-
"The grounds for cancellation of bail and grounds of
rejection of bail are two different circumstances and
hence the consideration of the court on the issue also
becomes different, while hearing the application for
cancellation of bail, the court has to be more rigid, as
it has to examine not only the possibility of violation,
but also the possible consequences. The power of
cancellation of bail must be exercised with care and
circumspection keeping in mind the urgent and
overwhelming circumstances. The bail already
granted should not be cancelled on a routine manner,
as it jeopardizes the personal liberty of the person. In
the present case, the respondent - State has not
been able to show any supervening circumstances,
which would reflect that the liberty, granted to the
accused, was misused, and no longer conducive to a
fair trial."
12. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to entertain
this application as there is no illegality and/or perversity
found out in the impugned order. Hence, this application
is rejected. Notice is discharged.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
AMIT ITALIAN
