[ENTITY] Applicant(s)V/S[ENTITY] Respondent(s) R/CR.MA/5627/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO. 5627 of 2013 [ENTITY] Applicant Versus [ENTITY] Respondent Appearance: MS [ENTITY], APP for the Applicant. CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Date : 10/04/2013 ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present application under [SECTION] of the [ACT], the applicant herein [ENTITY] has challenged the judgement and order dated 19/01/2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalol in [CASE NUMBER], by which, learned Additional Sessions Judge has exercised his powers u/[SECTION] of the [ACT] and has released the respondent original accused on anticipatory bail in connection with an offence registered before Kalol Taluka Police Station, Gandhinagar being C.R.No.I-6 of 2013 for the offence punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT].
2. Brief facts, emerge from the record of the case, are as under:
That one [ENTITY], who is owner of manufacturing unit of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, lodged a complaint with Kalol Taluka Police Station and alleged that respondent-accused, who was Assistant General Manager (In-charge) of GIDC, Chhatral was in connivance with some other accused, had misused the registration number of the GIDC Industries Employees Association and had created bogus/ forged documents and had misused the amount, which was belonging to the GIDC Employees Association. It was alleged that the said FIR was lodged on 07/01/2013.
Having come to know about lodging of the FIR, the respondent-accused filed an application u/[SECTION] of the [ACT] and requested the learned Sessions Judge to grant him anticipatory bail since the allegations are without any basis. It was contended by the respondent-accused that the complainant is private person and the complaint is filed for so called transactions with regard to the year 2000 to 2008. It is submitted that neither GIDC itself nor responsible Officer of GIDC has filed a complaint before the present respondent-accused. After considering the relevant transactions; Affidavit filed on behalf of the prosecution as well as objections raised by the original complainant, learned Sessions Judge has exercised his powers u/[SECTION] of the [ACT] and granted anticipatory bail to the respondent-accused, on certain conditions.
It was further argued by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the respondent accused in connivance with other accused, misused his powers and has not returned the money to the permanent members, as directed by this Court in [CASE NUMBER].
3. I have gone through the judgement and order passed by the learned Trial Court. It appears that learned Trial Court categorically observed in Paragraph-4 that the order passed by this Court in [CASE NUMBER], has been complied with by the original accused and amounts of membership have been returned to the permanent members and receipts were produced along with the application before the learned Trial Court. Even otherwise, I am of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has not dealt with the case of the respondent-original accused.
4. Considering the parameters laid down by the Honb le 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 Honb le 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].
5. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in various decisions, powers of the learned Appellate Court are different than granting the same. In case of [PRECEDENT], Hon ble Supreme Court has held that 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. Therefore, I am of the opinion that when the respondent- original accused has been released on anticipatory bail and has 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 anticipatory bail granted in favour of the respondent herein- original accused.
6. In view of the above, the present application is meritless and the same is dismissed.
[[ENTITY], J.] *dipti Page of 4