Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ghanshyambhai Mahashankarbhai ... on 16 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15743/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL)
NO. 15743 of 2023
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
GHANSHYAMBHAI MAHASHANKARBHAI LADHAVA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 16/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present application under Section
439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the
applicant - State has prayed to quash and set aside
the order dated 13.06.2023 passed by the learned 4th
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Criminal
Misc. Application No.635 of 2023, whereby the learned
Court concerned has granted regular bail to the
respondent - original accused.
2. Heard learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni for the
applicant - State and learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav
Vyas for the respondent - original accused.
3. Learned APP has argued the matter at length.
However, he is not in a position to controvert the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15743/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
fact that in the matter of co-accused, the Coordinate
Bench of this Court has not entertained the
application preferred by the State for cancellation
of bail of the said co-accused.
4. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Vyas for the
respondent - original accused submits that the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed the
application for cancellation of bail preferred by the
State in the case of co-accused. He has tendered the
copy of the said order across the Bar, which is
ordered to be taken on record. He, therefore, submits
that present application may also be dismissed.
5. The order dated 01.01.2024 passed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court, provides as under:
"1. By way of the present petition under
Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, the petitioner State has
prayed to quash and set aside the order dated
13.06.2023 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Criminal Misc.
Application No.665 of 2023, whereby the learned
Session Judge has granted regular bail to the
respondent - original accused.
2. Heard learned APP for the petitioner State.
3. 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:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15743/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
'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.'
4. Learned APP though strongly argued to
cancel the anticipatory bail on submission that
the learned Sessions Court while granting
anticipatory 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.
5. Learned APP also argued that the learned
Sessions Court ought to considered that
investigation was not concluded till passing of
impugned order. It is further submitted that
offence is serious in nature as there is clear
allegation of extortion of Rs.1 crore from
victims. The respondent accused had accepted
Rs.38 laks out of Rs.1 crore extortion amount.
The said amount of Rs.38 lakhs were placed at
the house of friend namely Hitendra. It is
submitted that amount of Rs.38 lakhs was
recovered from house of Hitendra Mandaliya.
Prima facie role of respondent accused was
serious in nature as he played the active role
in commission of crime. Therefore, learned
Trial Court ought not to have granted bail to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15743/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
the respondent - accused. It is further
submitted that learned Trial Court ought to
have considered that there are seven important
eye witnesses. It is submitted that if learned
Trial Court had considered the statement of
these witnesses than the Court might not have
considered regular bail application of
respondent accused prior to filing of charge
sheet. It is submitted that offence is
punishable for the life imprisonment. It is
submitted that respondent along with other
accused made conspiracy to blackmail the victim
as they claimed that they had ample evidence of
illegally in dummy scam. It is submitted that
offence is pre-plan offence and committed with
conscious involvement of respondent - accused.
Therefore, it is submitted to allow this
petition.
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. It is also
required to be noted that in present case,
charge sheet is filed.
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."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15743/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
8. Resultantly, present petition fails and
stands dismissed."
6. In view of the aforesaid observations made by
the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of
co-accused, I am not inclined to entertain this
application. Accordingly, application stands
dismissed. Rule discharged.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
LAVKUMAR J JANI
