[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Mehulbhai Raghnathbhai Rabari vs State Of Gujarat on 22 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4032/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 20/04/2026
Pronounced On : 22/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 4032 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY SD/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
MEHULBHAI RAGHNATHBHAI RABARI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. N.D. NANAVATI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR ASHISH M
DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No.1
MR. JAL UNWLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH JAY J JANI(9303) for the
Respondent(s) No.1
MR HEMAL P. SHAH(3948) for the Respondent(s) No.1
MS. DIVYANGNA P. JHALA, APP for the Respondent(s) No.1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice for and on behalf of the
respondent - State.
2. By filing the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: -
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4032/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
"A. The Hon'ble Court may please to admit this application;
B. The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this application by
issuing appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting
aside the order passed by the Ld. Sessions judge, Mahesana dated
05.01.2026 which is placed at annexure-B upon application filed the
respondent police authority dated 25.11.2025, CRMA NO. 1387 of 2025
at annexure-A in the facts and circumstances of the present case;
C. Pending admission and till final disposal of the application, the
Hon'ble Court may please to stay the execution, implementation and
further operation of the judgment and order passed by the Ld. Sessions
judge, Mahesana dated 05.01.2026 in CRMA NO. 1387 of 2025 at
annexure-B in the interest of justice;
D. The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and further
relief(s) as deemed, just and proper in the interest of justice."
3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to filing of the present petition
are such that the FIR came to be lodged against the petitioner and the other co-
accused for an offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1) of the BNS,
2023 and other allied offences. This Court, vide order dated 09.10.2025 passed
in Criminal Misc. Application No.20799 of 2025 had ordered to enlarge the
petitioner on regular bail after filing of the charge-sheet. While ordering to
enlarge the petitioner on regular bail vide aforesaid order, a condition was
imposed upon the petitioner to mark presence before the concerned Police
Station once in a month for a period of Six months. As per the case of
prosecution, the petitioner herein had violated the said condition and had not
marked his presence before the concerned Police Station, and therefore, on
25.11.2025, an application came to be submitted by prosecution to the learned
Sessions Court at Mehsana seeking cancellation of bail granted in favour of the
petitioner by this Court. Learned Sessions Court vide order dated 05.01.2026,
allowed the said application and cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner by
this Court. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court
by filing the present petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4032/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
4. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Nirupam Nanavati with learned
Advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli appearing for the petitioner. He submitted that after
the order was passed by this Court on 09.10.2025, the petitioner came to be
released on bail on 13.10.2025. On 16.10.2025, the petitioner went to mark his
presence before the Court at Kadi. The Police authorities had chased him and to
pressurize the petitioner, one Rameshbhai Rabari was taken into custody.
Therefore, the petitioner apprehended that he would be detained by the Police
authority. Still he again attended the Court at Kadi on the next date i.e., on
17.10.2025. Thereafter, on 20.10.2025, the petitioner had made a detailed
representation to the Superintendent of Police, Mehsana complaining about the
pressure being exerted upon the petitioner by the Police authorities. Since, no
action whatsoever was taken on the said representation, the petitioner had
approached this Court by filing the Special Criminal Application No.14813 of
2025. This Court vide order dated 14.11.2025, had directed the Superintendent
of Police, Mehsana to decide the said representation within period of Eight
weeks. On 25.11.2025, the petitioner herein was detained under the provisions
of PASA. The detention order passed under the provisions of PASA, was
quashed and set aside by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2025 passed in
Special Criminal Application No.15838 of 2025, and thereafter, on 17.12.2025,
the report was submitted by the Police Inspector of Bavlu Police Station to the
Superintendent of Police, Mehsana for cancellation of bail granted to the
petitioner. He submitted that after being released on preventive detention under
PASA, the petitioner had reported to the concerned Police Station on
03.01.2026 for marking his presence. In the interregnum, on 17.10.2025 as well
as on 25.11.2025, the petitioner had submitted an application seeking
exemption before the concerned Court. Therefore, the default in marking
presence on the part of the petitioner, was not a willful default. He further
submitted that there was a single default on the part of the petitioner by not
marking his presence before the concerned Police Station which cannot be the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4032/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
ground for cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner. He also submitted that
as per the settled law, the norms for cancelling the bail granted in favour of the
accused, have been prescribed and in view of this settled law, no case is made
out for cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner by this Court. He also
submitted that after the impugned order was passed by the learned Sessions
Court, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc.
Application No.1151 of 2026 seeking regular bail. However, since the
Coordinate Bench of this Court was of the view that an appropriate remedy for
the petitioner was in the form of special criminal application, and therefore, the
said application was withdrawn by the petitioner. He, therefore, submitted to
allow the present petition and quash and set aside the order impugned in the
petition.
5. Learned APP opposed the present petition contending that after being
enlarged on bail, the petitioner did not remain present before the concerned
Court on any occasion, and therefore, a warrant was ordered to be issued by the
learned Trial Court against the petitioner. Thus, the condition in question
requiring the petitioner to mark his presence before the concerned Police
Station, has been grossly violated by the petitioner, and therefore, learned
Sessions Court has rightly passed the order impugned in the petition which
requires no interference at the hands of this Court. He, therefore, submitted to
dismiss the present petition.
6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jal Unwala appearing with learned
Advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli for the respondent - original complainant has also
opposed the petition. Learned Senior Advocate raised a preliminary objection
against the maintainability of the present petition by contending that once the
bail granted to the petitioner by this Court stood cancelled by the impugned
order, the petitioner was in the constructive custody of the learned Trial Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4032/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
and the petitioner was required to surrender to the actual custody before the
learned Trial Court and the only remedy which is available to the petitioner is
to file an application for regular bail after surrendering to the judicial custody.
The petitioner herein has not surrendered after the bail granted to him was
cancelled by the learned Sessions Court. Therefore, the extraordinary
jurisdiction should not be exercised in favour of the petitioner. Learned Senior
Advocate has sought to rely upon the order dated 20.11.2020 of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of Manish Jain Versus Haryana State Pollution Control
Board. Learned Senior Advocate has not addressed this Court on the merits of
the matter.
7. Heard learned Advocate appearing for the respective parties and perused
the record. The preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent -
original complainant needs to be decided at first. It is sought to be contended
on behalf of the respondent - complainant that the only remedy available to the
petitioner would be in the form of filing an application seeking regular bail
after surrendering to the judicial custody. The submission does not appear to be
acceptable for the simple reason that it is always open to the petitioner to
challenge the order passed by the learned Sessions Court by which the bail
granted to him stood cancelled. Seeking regular bail after surrendering to the
judicial custody and challenging the order of cancelling bail granted to the
petitioner, are two different things and those cannot be equated with each other.
The right of the petitioner to take recourse to an appropriate remedy to
challenge the impugned order cannot be taken away simply because the
petitioner has not submitted to the judicial custody. The order cancelling bail
granted to the petitioner would always be open to judicial scrutiny. So far as the
reliance upon the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Manish Jain
(Supra) is concerned, in the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the issue was
with regard to the grant of anticipatory bail to a person whose regular bail was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4032/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
already cancelled and the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in its order that
after the bail granted to the accused being cancelled, the concerned accused
was in the constructive custody of law, and therefore, there was no
apprehension of his arrest. The issue with regard to the legality and validity of
the order by which the bail granted to the accused was cancelled, was not
before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised on
behalf of the respondent - original complainant as regards the maintainability
of the petition, needs to be discarded.
8. This Court vide order dated 09.10.2025 had ordered to enlarge the
petitioner on regular bail. While enlarging the petitioner on bail, a condition
was imposed upon him to mark his presence before the concerned Police
Station once every month for the period of Six months. It is the case of the
prosecution that the petitioner had committed breach of the said condition, and
therefore, an application came to be submitted by prosecution before the
learned Sessions Court praying for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner
by this Court vide order dated 09.10.2025 and vide impugned order, the learned
Sessions Court had allowed the said application and had cancelled the bail
granted to the petitioner by this Court. From the record as well as on the basis
of the submissions advanced at the bar, it appears that an order of preventive
detention under PASA came to be passed against the petitioner on 25.11.2025
and the petitioner was taken into custody pursuant to the said order. Thus, the
petitioner was under detention from 25.11.2025. The petitioner had challenged
the said order before this Court by filing Special Criminal Application
No.15838 of 2025 which was allowed by this Court vide judgment and order
dated 12.12.2025, and thereafter, the petitioner was released from the detention.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on 03.01.2026, the petitioner had
gone to the concerned Police Station for marking his presence. This submission
has not been controverted either by learned APP or by the learned Senior
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4032/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
Advocate appearing for the respondent - original complainant. The petitioner
may have committed a default by not marking his presence in the interregnum.
However, from the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner
had marked his presence before the concerned Court. Therefore, it is not the
case that the petitioner had absconded during that period nor he has committed
any other offence during the said period. Therefore, it does not appear that the
petitioner had misused the liberty granted to him in any manner. There is
nothing on record indicating any prejudice being caused to the case of
prosecution due to breach of condition. Mere breach of condition by itself
cannot be the ground sufficient for cancellation of bail in the absence of any
material showing any prejudice. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent
judgment in case of Shabeen Ahmed Versus State of U.P. and Ors reported in
2025 (4) SCC 172 as well as in the case of Ajwar Versus Waseem and Anr.
reported in 2024 (10) SCC 768 has held that bail once granted, ought not be
cancelled in a mechanical manner. Having regard to these aspects, the
petitioner deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed. The order
dated 05.01.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Court, Mehsana is hereby
quashed and set aside. Rule is absolute absolute.
SD/-
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
RAVI OZA
