Gujarat High Court
Jasiben Mithusinh Amarsinh vs State Of Gujarat on 30 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15341/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
15341 of 2021
==========================================================
JASIBEN MITHUSINH AMARSINH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TEJAS M BAROT(2964) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 30/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present application under Section
439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant has
prayed for cancellation of bail granted vide order dated
01.07.2021 passed by the Learned District and Sessions
Judge, Sabarkantha at, Himmatnager, in Criminal Misc.
Application No.259 of 2021, in connection with the FIR
being I. C.R. No.11209041210943 of 2021 registered
with Prantij Police Station for the alleged offences as
mentioned in the FIR.
2. Learned Senior advocate Mr.Tejas Barot appears for
the applicant submits that, the so-called incident
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15341/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
occurred on 12.06.2021, and on the very next day, on
13.06.2021, FIR was registered. Pursuant to the
registration of the FIR, the investigation was commenced,
in fact, investigating Officer concerned has apprehended
the accused persons. He submits that despite the fact
that, name as well as specific role was attributed to the
respondent no.2, within no time, the learned Sessions
Judge entertained the bail application preferred by
respondent no.2 and granted bail to him. He has referred
to the reasons assigned by the Court concerned and
submitted that considering the fact that at the time of
occurrence of incident, respondent no.2 was in
possession of the deadly weapon 'Dhariya' in his hands
and had inflicted blows upon the body of the victim, the
Court concerned has exercised discretionary power in
favour of respondent no.2 however, those reasons
assigned by the Court concerned are not in consonance
with the material available on record, therefore, it can
safely be said that the order passed by the learned Court
concerned is not in accordance with the settled
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15341/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
proposition of law, and therefore, the said order is
required to be quash and set aside by allowing the
present application. Learned Senior advocate Mr.Tejas
Barot further submits that, the Court concerned ought to
have to wait up to the submission of chargesheet, as
when application was decided at that relevant point of
time investigation was on a progressive stage and
therefore, considering the gravity of the charge of the
offence levelled against the accused as well as other
attending circumstances which clearly goes on to show
the direct involvement of the accused in commission of
serious offence wherein, complainant & victim had
sustained severe injuries. Considering the above stated
factual aspects application preferred by the complainant
is required to be allowed by quashing and setting aside
the order passed by the trial Court.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Pratik Barot appears on behalf
of the respondent no.2 submits that on the fateful day,
present incident was occurred, and on the strength of the
same, an FIR was registered by the applicant-complainant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15341/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
before the police, and pursuant to which, investigation
was commenced, and all accused persons named in the
body of the FIR have already been apprehended by the
concerned Investigating Officer. He further submits that
the order passed by the Hon'ble Court is just, fair and
reasonable and based upon sound principal of law as the
operating part of the order shows that after considering
and appreciating all the documents available on record
order is delivered. He submits that considering the role
attributed to the respondent no.2, the bail application of
the accused has been entertained by the Court
concerned. He further submits that, in fact, a cross
complaints have been registered by the parties against
each other. He further submits that in fact, incident of
fight occurred between members of two rival parties and
one Arvindbhai from the respondent no.2's side had also
registred cross complaint against applicant and other
witnesses. He further submits that, members of
respondent no.2 have also sustained injuries in the said
incident. He further submits that, in fact, as per the case
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15341/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
of the prosecution, co-accused Arvindbhai is the main
accused, and his bail application has already been
entertained by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble
Court after submission of chargesheet, a copy of which is
also placed on record. He further submits that in fact,
main accused himself has already been released by the
Coordinate Bench. He submits that, in fact, after the
order of releasing the respondent no.2, Investigating
Officer continue with the investigation, at the end of day
collected sufficient material against all the accused and
therefore, submitted chargesheet before the Competent
Court, then after trial has already been commenced and
number of witnesses have been examined. Considering
the above stated factual aspects, the Hon'ble Court may
not entertained this application at this belated stage. He
further submits that the parameters and guidelines to
entertain the regular bail applications and to reject the
cancellation of bail application are very much settled by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in support of this
submission he has put reliance upon the case of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15341/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
Bharatbhai Bhimabhai Bharwad Vs. State of Gujarat
2019 (0) AIJEL SC 64512 and in the case of Dinesh
M.N.(S.P.) Vs. State of Gujarat 2008 (0) AIJEL SC
41252, submitted that as per the ratio laid down to the
Hon'ble Apex Court, it amounts that this case was the
present application filed by the applicant is required to be
dismissed.
4. I have considered the rival submissions canvassed by
learned advocates for the parties and also perused the
material available on record.
5. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15341/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
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 forcancellation of bail."
6. 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."
7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Bhagirathsinh Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15341/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
(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 readily available for his trial and
whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his
favour by tampering with evidence."
8. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15341/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
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."
9. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15341/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
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.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15341/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
power to cancel bail has to be exercised with caution and
great circumspection in appropriate cases.
11. 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 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-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15341/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
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.
12. 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 3
persons have sustained injuries and in connection with
the aforesaid FIR, the applicant had filed an application
seeking 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15341/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
13. 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 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 no.2 - 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.
14. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15341/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
cancellation of bail after more than four years and,
therefore, order of cancellation of bail cannot be justified
at this stage.
15. Therefore, the present application lacks of merit
therefore, is hereby rejected. Notice discharged.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
KKN
