[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Naranbhai Lakhabhai Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat on 9 April, 2026
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 213 of
2025
================================================================
NARANBHAI LAKHABHAI PRAJAPATI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR NAYAN L GUPTA for MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s)
No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 09/04/2026
ORDER
1. Notice has been served qua respondent No.2 but none
appear for the respondent No.2.
2. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of
the respondent-State.
3. By way of this application, a prayer is made to quash and
set aside the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Idar, Sabarkantha in Criminal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
Miscellaneous Application No.678 of 2024 as also the
execution, implementation and further operation of the
said order till the applicant is released on bail.
4. The applicant is the original accused of the FIR registered
as I-C.R. No.0040 of 2014 with Kheroj Police Station,
District Sabarkantha for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 409, 465, 466, 468, 471, 120(B) and 34 of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 7, 13(1)
(D) (1)(2) and (3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
5. The applicant is before this Court challenging the order
dated 13.01.2025 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions
Judge, Idar, Sabarkantha in Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No.678 of 2024 whereby the bail granted
came to be cancelled by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court on 06.09.2023 in Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No.12979 of 2023 came to be cancelled.
6. Learned advocate for the applicant Mr. Nayan L. Gupta
submitted that the cancellation of bail by the Sessions
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
Judge was on the premise that the applicant has failed to
follow condition No.6.[f] in the order dated 06.09.2023
granting bail to the applicant. Condition No.6.[f] is
reproduced herein for ready reference :-
"[f] mark his presence before the concerned police station in
the first week of every month till the trial is over;"
7. Learned advocate Mr. Nayan L. Gupta submitted that the
learned Sessions Judge has noted that the accused had
appeared at the Police Station by referring to the
attendance sheet lastly on 04.06.2024 and thereafter,
has failed to appear before the police and thereby,
considered it as a breach of conditions of the order of
granting bail. It is further submitted that as per the case
of the prosecution, the applicant has not marked his
presence before the concerned Police Station after the
condition being laid by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court by an order dated 06.09.2025. It is further
submitted that the order of the learned Sessions Judge
itself reflects that from 10.09.2024 to 03.01.2025, the
accused had marked his presence before the Kheroj
Police Station. It is further submitted that qua the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
applicant another FIR was filed on 07.06.2024 and in that
matter, the applicant was released on bail on 24.11.2025.
whereas the bail granted by the High Court came to be
cancelled on 13.01.2025. It is further submitted that the
charge-sheet of the matter where the applicant was
granted bail was filed on 26.06.2024 in ACB Case No.1 of
2023. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions
Judge was granted liberty by the order of the Co-ordinate
Bench to even delete / modify / and / or relax any of the
conditions in accordance with the law.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Nayan L. Gupta submitted that
once the charge-sheet has been filed before the Court,
then that matter is in seisen and the concerned Judge
should not insist of the accused to simultaneously mark
his presence before the Investigating Officer or the Police
Station concerned or in any other police station
concerned. It is further submitted that the learned Judge
has failed to take into notice that the applicant was
granted bail in connection the FIR which was filed on
07.06.2024. Learned advocate for the applicant has
placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
Kadarsha Latifsha Saiyed thro Jamilsha Kadarsha
Saiyed v. State of Gujarat reported in LiveLaw (Guj)
2024 96.
9. Countering the above arguments, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor Mr. Bhargav Pandya submitted that the
Co-ordinate Bench had directed the applicant to mark his
presence before the concerned Police Station in the first
week of every month till the trial is over. The applicant
as an accused was required to adhere to the conditions
scrupulously and if at all, he had any difficulty he was
required to move the concerned Court for relaxation of
the condition or to move the concerned Court for deletion
of the condition. It is further submitted that since the
condition is still in force, the order passed by the learned
Sessions Judge canceling the bail is just and proper.
10. Having heard submissions of both the sides, the admitted
position is that the charge-sheet has already been filed
before the concerned Sessions Court in connection to the
FIR wherein the applicant was granted bail by the Co-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
ordinate Bench on 06.09.2023.
11. The object of bail has been laid down in case of Sanjay
Chandra Vs. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40,
wherein in para-14, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
under :
Para-14:- In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down
from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the
appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable
amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor
preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a
punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an
accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The
courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that
punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is
deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in
custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great
hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some
un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial
to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases,
`necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it would be
quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in
the Constitution that any person should be punished in
respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted
or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his
liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the
witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary
circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being
the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the
fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a
substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any
Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former
conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not
or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of
giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
12. In case of Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana,
reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in para-4 held 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 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. 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."
13. Thus in Dolat Ram's case, it has been held that bail
once granted should not be cancelled in a manner
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
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. In the
case of X Vs. State of Telangana, reported in 2018
(16) SCC 511, the Apex Court has held that bail once
granted should not be cancelled unless a cogent case
based on a supervening event has been made out. It has
been observed that second FIR is not a supervening
circumstance of such a nature, as would warrant the
cancellation of bail, which was granted by the High Court.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Gurcharan Singh
& Ors. Vs. State (Delhi Administration), reported in
(1978) 1 SCC 118, 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 are
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
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.
15. This Court would also like to refer to the decision in the
case of Merubhai Ramabhai Khodiyatar (Hun)
Rabari v. State of Gujarat reported in 2021 (2) G.L.R.
1175. In Paragraph 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."
16. In the referred judgments, the Apex Court while dealing
with the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra) has very
categorically noted that the imprisonment before
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would
be improper for any Court to refuse bail to any convicted
person for the purpose of giving him a taste of
imprisonment as a lesson. Rejection of bail and
cancellation of bail both have its own standards and has
a different perspective to be examined. Once bail
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. The bail
once granted should not be cancelled unless cogent case
based on supervening event has been made out.
17. The learned trial Court has not noted that the accused
was not remaining present before the Court his lawyer
was not representing the matter. Further, the concerned
learned Judge merely on an application being moved
without examining the likelihood of the accused fleeing
away from justice or any conduct of the accused hence,
merely on observing that there is breach of the
conditions of the Co-ordinate Bench has cancelled the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
bail granted by the High Court. The learned Judge had
failed to appreciate the liberty granted in Paragraph 7 of
the order of the Co-ordinate Bench where the concerned
Court had the liberty to delete / modify and/or relax any
of the conditions in accordance with law. The learned
Judge thus, was required to balance the necessity of the
presence of the accused before the Police Station,
alongwith the fact that the presence of the accused
before the trial Court would be necessary to ensure that
he remains present while the evidence get recorded after
framing of the charge. The impugned order of
cancellation of bail frustrates the liberty granted to the
accused. It appears that the learned Judge had not given
favourable consideration of the observations of the Co-
ordinate Bench in Paragraph 7 of the order and
thereupon could have considered the case of the accused
as well as from the side of the State to deal with as to
whether there was any necessity of condition No.6.[f] to
be followed by the accused.
18. This Court finds that the order of cancellation of bail
passed by the learned Judge is perverse, unjust and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
improper. The learned Judge has not undertaken the
exercise of apprising the necessity of the applicant's
presence before the Police Station even after the charge-
sheet has been filed before that Court.
19. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion and
considering the principles as laid down in the above
decisions, the present application is allowed. The order
dated 13.01.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Idar, Sabarkantha in Criminal Miscellaneous Application
No.678 of 2024 is quashed and set aside.
Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
Service is permitted.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI, J)
CAROLINE / SB-1 # 3
