Gujarat High Court
Bhavesh Kanubhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 17 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6842/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 6842 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 7142 of 2025
==========================================================
BHAVESH KANUBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JIMIT P SHAH(9917) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS BHAVIKA H KOTECHA(2942) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 17/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
ORDER IN R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING)
NO.6842 of 2025: -
1. By filing the present petition under the Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: -
"13. A. Your Lordships may be pleased allow and admit this petition;
B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ order or
direction quashing and setting the aside the order dated order dated
29.03.2025 passed below Exhibit 14 by the Ld. 23 rd Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court No.11 in Criminal Case No. 40236 of 2019 at (Annex-
G) and order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge
Court No.3 City Civil and Sessions Court at Ahmedabad in Criminal
Revision Application No.208 of 2025 at (Annex-H) and further be
pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6842/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
C. Pending the Admission and Final Hearing of the petition Your
Lordships may be pleased to stay order dated order dated 29.03.2025
passed below Exhibit 14 by the Ld. 23 rd Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate
Court No.11 in Criminal Case No.40236 of 2019 at (Annex-G) and
order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge Court
No.3 City Civil and Sessions Court at Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision
Application No.208 of 2025 at (Annex-H) and further be pleased to
enlarge the petitioner on bail;
D. Your Lordship may be pleased to grant any other just and proper
reliefs as deemed fit, in the interest of justice."
2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent
- State, Learned Advocate Ms. Bhavika Kotecha for the complainant waives
service of notice on behalf of respondent - original complainant.
3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to file the present petition are
such that an offence being CR. No.I-64 of 2018 came to be registered with
Mahila Police Station (East), Ahmedabad against the petitioner for an offence
punishable under Section 498(A), 323, 494(B), 506(2) and 114 of IPC and
other provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
4. The petitioner and the other co-accused were ordered to be enlarged on
bail by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Ahmedabad vide Order dated 26.04.2019. Certain conditions were imposed by
the learned Court while ordering them to be enlarged on bail. Thereafter, the
respondent - original complainant filed an application under Section 437(5) of
Cr.P.C. seeking the bail granted to the petitioner and the other co-accused to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6842/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
cancelled on the ground of the conditions imposed by the learned Court while
ordering the petitioner and the other co-accused to be enlarged on bail were not
complied with. The application in question was filed by the first informant in
the year 2019 which came to be allowed by the learned Trial Court vide Order
dated 29.03.2025. The learned Trial Court while cancelling the bail granted to
the petitioner and the other co-accused had granted them time of 30 days to
surrender before the concerned Court. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with
the bail granted to the accused being cancelled, the petitioner and the other co-
accused filed a Criminal Revision Application No.208 of 2025 before the
learned Sessions Court whereas the first informant filed Criminal Revision
Application No.170 of 2025 challenging the order passed by the learned Trial
Court so far as it relates to granting 30 days' time to the accused for surrender.
Learned Sessions Court vide Judgment and Order dated 28.04.2025 had
dismissed the revision application filed by the respondent - first informant
whereas partly allowed the revision application filed by the accused persons
and the Order passed by the learned Trial Court cancelling the bail was
quashed and set aside qua the other co-accused whereas the same was
confirmed qua the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner
has preferred the present petition.
5. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the first
informant had filed an application for cancellation of bail in the year of 2019
whereas the same was allowed in the year 2025. In the interregnum, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6842/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
petitioner had remained present before the learned Trial Court and charge has
also been framed against him as well as the other accused. He submitted that
the petitioner is the resident of Mumbai, and therefore, could not comply with
certain conditions enforced by the learned Trial Court while ordering him to be
enlarged on bail. He submitted that after filing of the application for
cancellation of bail, till it was allowed, the warrants were issued against the
petitioner on couple of occasions and the petitioner had remained present
before the learned Trial Court asking for cancellation of those warrants and
those warrants were resultantly cancelled by the learned Trial Court. He further
submitted that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner of not
remaining present before the concerned Court or evade the trial. The petitioner
is still ready and willing to remain present for trial of the offence in question.
He, therefore, submitted to allow the present petition and quash and set aside
the order of cancelling bail granted to the petitioner and its confirmation by the
learned Sessions Court.
6. Learned APP has opposed the present petition contending that after
being enlarged on bail, the petitioner and the other co-accused were not
remaining present before the concerned Court, and therefore, warrants were
required to be issued against them to secure their presence. He also submitted
that the petitioner herein had also not complied with the other conditions
imposed upon him by the learned Trial Court by the order granting him regular
bail, and therefore, the learned Trial Court was constraint to cancel the bail
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6842/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
granted to him. No error can be said to have committed either by the learned
Trial Court or by the learned Sessions court in passing the orders impugned in
the present petition. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the application.
7. Learned Ms. Bhavika Kotech appearing for the respondent - original
complainant submitted that recently an order under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C.
has been passed against the petitioner by the learned Trial Court as even after
cancellation of bail, the petitioner has not remained present before the learned
Trial Court. She submitted that the petitioner had committed breach of the
other conditions also imposed upon him by the learned Trial Court while
granting him bail. The petitioner is habitual in not remaining present before the
learned Trial Court and because of his absence, the trial has been delayed. She,
therefore, submitted to dismiss the present petition.
8. After learned Advocate Ms. Bhavika Kotecha had made her
submissions, the respondent - complainant who was also personally present in
the Court, tried to make her statement.
9. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. The present petitioner happens
to be the husband of the respondent - complainant. She had lodged the FIR in
question against the petitioner and the other co-accused for the offence referred
to hereinabove. In the said offence, the petitioner and the other co-accused
were ordered to be enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court. However, as per
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6842/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
the case of prosecution, the conditions imposed upon them by the learned Trial
Court while granting them bail, were not complied with, and therefore, the
original complainant submitted an application under Section 437(5) of Cr.P.C.
before the learned Trial Court in the year 2019. The said application remained
pending before the learned Trial Court till 29.03.2025 and it was on 29.03.2025
that the bail granted to the petitioner and the other co-accused was cancelled by
the learned Trial Court exercising its powers under Section 437(5) of Cr.P.C. It
is the case of prosecution that the petitioner and the other co-accused had not
furnished solvency certificates before the learned Trial Court. They were also
required to surrender their passports within a period of 3 days from the date of
the order. However, the passports were also not surrendered by the co-accused
persons. Thus, the bail granted to the petitioner and the other co-accused were
sought to be cancelled only on the ground of non-compliance of the conditions
imposed upon them. The material available on record indicates that in the
interregnum, the petitioner herein has remained present before the learned Trial
Court on a couple of occasions. Even, after the issuance of warrants, the
petitioner had appeared before the Court and had prayed for cancellation of
warrants issued against him. Thus, it is not the case that the petitioner has not at
all remained present before the learned Trial Court after being released on bail.
It is also stated by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the
petitioner herein will abide by all the conditions imposed upon him while
ordering him to be enlarged on bail. There is nothing on record to indicate
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6842/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
about any serious prejudice being caused to the complainant because of the
petitioner being enlarged on bail. Under the circumstances, the present petition
is allowed. The Orders passed by the learned 23 rd Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ahmedabad below application under Section 437(5) of Cr.P.C. as well as the
Order passed by the learned Sessions Court dismissing the Criminal Revision
Application No.208 of 2025 so far as it relates to the present petitioner, are
quashed and set aside.
ORDER IN R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING)
NO.7142 of 2025: -
1. By filing the present petition under the Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: -
"7. A. Be pleased to allow this petition;
B. Be pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by the Ld. City
Sessions Judge, Bhadra, Ahmedabad City, in Revision Application
No.208/2025 dated 28-04-2025;
C. Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to stay
the further implementation, operation and execution of the impugned
order passed in Criminal Revision Application No.208/2025, passed by
the Ld. City Sessions Judge, Bhadra, Ahmedabad dated 28-04-2025;
D. Be pleased to grant such other and further relief which deems fit and
proper in the interest of justice."
2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice for on behalf of the
respondent - State, learned Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kanani for the Respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6842/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
Nos.2 to 8 waives service of notice.
3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to file the present petition are
such that an offence being CR. No.I-64 of 2018 came to be registered with
Mahila Police Station (East), Ahmedabad against the Respondent Nos.2 to 8
for an offence punishable under Section 498(A), 323, 494(B), 506(2) and 114
of IPC and other provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
4. The accused persons were ordered to be enlarged on bail by the learned
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad vide Order dated
26.04.2019. Certain conditions were imposed by the learned Court while
ordering them to be enlarged on bail. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed an
application under Section 437(5) of Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail granted
to the Respondent Nos.2 to 8 on the ground that the conditions imposed by the
learned Court while ordering the respondents to be enlarged on bail were not
complied with. The application in question was filed by the petitioner herein in
the year 2019 which came to be allowed by the learned Trial Court vide Order
dated 29.03.2025. The learned Trial Court while cancelling the bail granted to
the respondents had granted them time of 30 days to surrender before the
concerned Court. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the bail granted to the
accused being cancelled, the Respondent Nos.2 to 8 filed a Criminal Revision
Application No.208 of 2025 before the learned Sessions Court whereas the first
informant filed Criminal Revision Application No.170 of 2025 challenging the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6842/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
order passed by the learned Trial Court so far as it relates to granting 30 days'
time to the accused for surrender. Learned Sessions Court vide Judgment and
Order dated 28.04.2025 had dismissed the revision application filed by the first
informant whereas partly allowed the revision application filed by the accused
persons and the Order passed by the learned Trial Court cancelling the bail was
quashed and set aside qua the Respondent Nos.3 to 8 whereas the same was
confirmed qua the Respondent No.2. Being aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner has preferred the present petition.
5. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that having
regard to the fact that the respondents herein had not remained present before
the concerned Court after being enlarged on bail, the learned Sessions Court
ought not to have allowed the revision application filed by the Respondent
Nos.3 to 8. She further submitted that the respondents herein had deliberately
remained absent before the learned Trial Court, and therefore, the learned Trial
Court had rightly allowed the application filed by the petitioner and had
cancelled bail granted to them. Moreover, they had also flouted the conditions
imposed upon them by the learned Trial Court while granting them on bail. She
also submitted that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Sessions
Court ought to have considered the conduct on the part of the respondents
herein of remaining absent from the concerned Court, and therefore, ought not
to have granted bail period of 30 days for surrendering before the Court. She,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6842/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
therefore, submitted to allow the present petition and quash and set aside the
order passed by the learned Trial Court so far as it relates to granting 30 days
time to the respondents for surrendering before the Court and the Order passed
by the learned Sessions Court allowing the criminal revision application filed
by the Respondent Nos.3 to 8.
6. Learned APP has submitted to pass an appropriate order considering the
conduct on the part of the respondents.
7. Learned Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kanani for the respondents has opposed
the present petition.
8. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. Learned Advocate appearing
for the petitioner is not in a position to demonstrate any illegality being
committed either by the learned Trial Court or by the learned Sessions Court in
passing the orders impugned in the present petition. The petitioner is aggrieved
by the fact that the learned Trial Court had granted 30 days time to Respondent
Nos.2 to 8 for surrendering before the Court whereas the learned Sessions
Court had allowed the criminal revision application filed by the Respondent
Nos.3 to 8. There is nothing on record to indicate any prejudice being caused to
the petitioner. It appears from the record that the bail granted to Respondent
Nos.2 to 8 were cancelled because of non-compliance of certain conditions
imposed upon them. It is also the case that the Respondent Nos.2 to 8 did not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6842/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
remain present before the learned Trial Court. However, the record speaks that
the Respondent Nos.2 to 8 have regularly remained present before the learned
Trial Court and even charges have also been framed against them. Except for
few occasions, while warrants were issued against them. However, after issuing
of warrants, the respondents have appeared before the Court below and had
prayed for cancellation of those warrants and the said request was granted by
the learned Trial Court. There is nothing on record to show that either of the
respondents had taken any undue advantage of liberty granted to them or they
had caused any serious prejudice to the case of the petitioner. Under the
circumstances, both the Courts below cannot be said to have committed any
error apparent on record. Hence, the present petition being devoid of any
merits, is hereby dismissed.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
RAVI OZA
