The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail can be cancelled only on the existence of cogent and overwhelming circumstances, and not on re-appreciation of the facts of the case. The court emphasized the need to consider the nature and gravity of the charges, the character and behavior of the accused, and the reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with.

J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. Both the captioned applications are for cancellation of bail, one filed by the State of Gujarat and the another by the original first informant. In such circumstances, both were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. The application filed by the State of Gujarat for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent accused is considered as the lead matter.

3. By this application under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the State of Gujarat, has prayed for the following reliefs;

"(A) Your Lordships be pleased to admit and allow this Criminal Misc. Application.

(B) Your Lordships be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 18.09.2015 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 635 of 2015 and cancel the bail of the respondent/accused and further order to take the respondent/accused in custody, in the interest of justice.

(C) Your Lordships be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the order dated 18.09.2015 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Criminal Misc. Application No. 635 of 2015, and order to take respondent/accused in custody, pending this application, in the interest of justice.

(D) Your Lordships be pleased to grant any other and further relief which may be deem fit by this Hon'ble Court."

4. The case of the prosecution is as under;

4.1 The applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No. 18248 of 2015 lodged a first information report being C.R. No. I-15 of 2011 with the Bechraji Police Station, District: Mehsana for the offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 324, 337, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and section 25(1)(c) of the Arms Act. In the first information report, it has been alleged that two groups of the Rabari Community, one affiliated with the B.J.P and the other with the Congress, are at an inimical terms after the results of the election of the Taluka Panchayat of Surpura. On the date of the election, the nephew of the first informant, in company of others, left his house for the purpose of voting, and at that point of time, a quarrel ensued with the respondent No. 2. It appears as alleged that the respondent No. 2(original accused) lost in the election, as a result, he decided to seek revenge. It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent No. 2-accused along with the other co-accused travelled from Ahmedabad to village Surpura in a car and came at the place where the first informant and others were sitting. The respondent No. 2 had a twelve bore gun in his hand, whereas the other co-accused were also armed with different weapons. It is alleged that the co-accused, namely, Dahyabhai and Mafabhai caught hold of the deceased Bhagvanbhai Mohanbhai and the respondent No. 2 herein fired a gunshot on the deceased which proved to be fatal.

4.2 It also appears that a cross first information report was also lodged against the first informant and others.

4.3 Having given a fair idea as regards the case of the prosecution, I may now narrate few events so far as the respondent No. 2 is concerned.

"(i) The first information report is dated 11th February, 2011. From day one, the respondent herein remained absconding. At the end of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed, in which, the respondent herein has been shown in Column No. 2 as an absconding accused.

(ii) The filing of the charge-sheet culminated in Sessions Case No. 81 of 2011, pending as on today, in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana. It appears that the respondent preferred an anticipatory bail application before this Court being Criminal Misc. Application No. 15630 of 2011, which came to be disposed of as not pressed with liberty to approach the Sessions Court.

(iii) Accordingly, an application for anticipatory bail was filed before the Sessions Court, which came to be rejected vide order dated 3rd December, 2011.

(iv) Thereafter, the respondent came again befo