[CASE NUMBER] ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO. 15792 of 2015 [ENTITY] Applicant(s) Versus [ENTITY] & 1 Respondent(s) Appearance: MR [ENTITY], APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR [ENTITY], ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Date : 16/09/2015 ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present application under [SECTION] of the [ACT], the applicant herein [ENTITY] has challenged the order dated 14.07.2015 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhidham, Kutch in [CASE NUMBER], by which learned Sessions Judge has exercised his power under [SECTION] [ACT] and has ordered that the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents - accused have appeared through learned counsel and have filed detailed reply along with necessary documents.
2. Mr. [ENTITY], learned Additional Public Prosecutor has HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Sun Sep 20 01:16:21 IST 2015 [CASE NUMBER] ORDER submitted that the respondents are involved in serious offence and allegations are made with regard to misappropriation of money to the tune of Rs.1,58,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Eight Lakh only), as alleged in the F.I.R. and they have committed forgery by putting signatures of original complainant namely Smt. [ENTITY] wife of [ENTITY]. It is further submitted that the order of the learned Sessions Judge may be quashed and set aside.
3. Mr.[ENTITY], learned advocate for the respondents herein has submitted that the complainant is the wife of the respondent No.1 and daughter-in-law of respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the dispute is of civil nature. This application is preferred by the applicant under [SECTION] of [ACT] for quashing the impugned F.I.R. which was entertained. It is further submitted that the application was filed before this Court being [CASE NUMBER], wherein stay against further investigation was granted and the same was modified and respondents were directed to co-operate with the investigation. On 03.07.2015, the said application was withdrawn by the applicants - accused. It is further submitted that the original complainant is relative of the present respondents and she has also challenged to grant of interim relief by way of filing [CASE NUMBER], which came to be withdrawn by the applicant. It is also submitted that the Trial Court has imposed certain conditions, which are not alleged to have been breached by any of the respondents. Therefore, this application may be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Sun Sep 20 01:16:21 IST 2015 [CASE NUMBER] ORDER the respective parties and perused the papers of the charge sheet, order passed by the Trial Court as well as orders passed by this Court in various applications. It is found that the respondents have co-operated with the investigating agency and supplied all the material which had demanded by the investigating agency. It is also pertinent to note that the application filed by the original complainant has not been entertained by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the same has been dismissed as withdrawn.
5. Considering the parameters laid down by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Bhagirathsinh Judeja v. [ENTITY] [AIR 1984 SC 372] and [PRECEDENT] for exercise of powers under [SECTION] of the Code, it cannot be said that other than legal consideration weighed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge for exercising powers and keeping in mind law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in the case of [PRECEDENT], the respondent - accused is granted anticipatory bail which do not make out a case for this Court to exercise powers under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
6. Considering the ratio laid down by the Honble Apex Court in various decisions, powers of the learned Appellate Court are different than granting the same. In case of [PRECEDENT], Honble Supreme Court has held that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Sun Sep 20 01:16:21 IST 2015 [CASE NUMBER] ORDER 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. Therefore, I am of the opinion that when the respondents- original accused have been released on bail and have not committed any breach of conditions imposed by the court, there are no reasons to exercise my power under [SECTION] of the [ACT] and cancel the regular bail granted in favour of respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein- original accused.
7. In view of the above, the present application is meritless and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged.
([ENTITY], J.) Salim/ HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Sun Sep 20 01:16:21 IST 2015