Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/3495/2009 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 3495 of 2009
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
PATEL
SANJAY AMBALAL & 10 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
JM PANCHAL SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR with MR KJ PANCHAL for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR MR KG
MENON, Sr.COUNSEL with MR AJAYKUMAR CHOKSI for Applicant(s) : 2,
MR VIJAY H
PATEL for HL PATEL ADVOCATES for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 22/06/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The
present application has been filed by the applicant for cancellation
of bail granted to the respondent original-accused as per the order
passed in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 51 of 2009 as well as 63 of
2009, on the grounds set out in the memo.
2. Learned
Special Public Prosecutor Mr.J.M.Panchal appearing for the State and
learned Sr.Counsel Mr.Menon with learned advocate Mr. Ajaykumar
Chokshi for Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’ for short) have
submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate
that the opponents are involved in the heinous crime and therefore,
considering this aspect and the statements of witnesses which have
been discussed in detail, the order passed by the learned Sessions
Court is misconceived. Learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr.Panchal
as well as learned Sr.Counsel Mr.Menon submitted that at the stage of
application for bail, such a detailed appreciation of evidence is not
necessary and, therefore, the learned Judge has committed an error in
entering into the arena of appreciation of evidence and credibility
of the witnesses etc. Therefore, it was submitted that if these
aspects are considered, the present application may be allowed and
the order may be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate Mr.Vijay
Patel, appearing for the original accused has, however, stated that,
the trial has not only commenced but is on the verge of completion,
which is not disputed by the other side. It has also been stated
that out of 105 witnesses, about 10 to 15 witnesses are now required
to be examined. Mr.Patel has also submitted that the respondents
accused have co-operated during the trial and the present
application for cancellation of bail after 6 years of the incident
is not proper. It has also been submitted that the present
application for cancellation of bail may not entertained particularly
referring to the details stated in the impugned order that if there
is any apprehension, such application could have been filed at the
instance of NGO or others. It is further submitted that after the
arrest and release of the accused, they have not indulged in to any
activity and they are regularly attending the Courts. There are no
complaints of abuse or any misuse of liberty. It has also been
submitted that the applicant – accused were shown to be
involved in the further statement recorded subsequently. Therefore,
it was submitted that the cancellation of bail on the basis of a
statement recorded subsequently without any complaint or abuse or
misuse of liberty, may not be entertained.
3. In
view of the rival submissions, it is required to be considered
whether present application can be entertained or not. It is well
accepted by catena of judicial pronouncements including the
observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vaman Narain
Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 2009 SC 1362 that at
the stage of considering the bail application, the Court is not
required to appreciate and scrutinize the evidence in detail and only
prima facie case is required to be considered. Therefore, as
submitted by learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr.Panchal, the
learned Judge has entered into the arena of appreciation and scrutiny
of evidence, which would not be required and therefore without any
further elaboration, it would be suffice to consider the present
application for cancellation of bail on the well accepted principle
regarding cancellation of bail. Admittedly, after 6 years of the
incident and when the trial is almost likely to be over for which
there is no dispute, the bail already granted cannot be cancelled.
Admittedly, there is no complaint regarding abuse or misuse of
liberty.
4. Therefore,
considering the aforesaid aspect only, without going into further
details and also appreciation of evidence, this Court is of the
opinion that the present application cannot be entertained and
deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it stands rejected. Notice
is discharged.
(Rajesh
H.Shukla, J.)
Sreeram.
Top