The court emphasized the importance of considering the facts of the case after the filing of the charge-sheet before granting bail and highlighted the impact of the cancellation of a previous bail order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

ORDER :

1. This group of applications is for cancellation of bail, which has been granted in connection with Cr.No.I/131/2018, registered with Morbi Taluka Police Station under sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 135 of G.P. Act.

2. The accused of these matters had filed bail applications prior to the charge-sheet before the Sessions Judge, Morbi, which came to be rejected, and, after the charge-sheet the prayer for bail was made before the Sessions Judge by accused: (i) Mansukh Ramjibhai Dabhi, party respondent in Criminal Misc. Application Nos.15126 of 2020 and 18378 of 2020; (ii) Bharat Jivraj Dabhi and Ashwin Jivrajbhai Dabhi, party respondents in Criminal Misc. Application No.19118 of 2020; (iii) Shiva Ramjibhai Dabhi, party respondent in Criminal Misc. Application No.19151 of 2020; (iv) Sanjay Naranbhai Dabhi, Kishorbhai @ Katti Shivabhai Dabhi and Kanjibhai Mansukhbhai Dabhi, party respondents in Criminal Misc. Application No.19148 of 2020.

3. Mr. P.B. Khandheria, learned advocate for the victim – applicant submitted that, earlier bail applications of all the accused were rejected by the Sessions Judge and on filing of charge-sheet bail applications were moved by all the accused concerning the present matters. Mr. Khandheria referring to the observations of the Sessions Judge submitted that, after the charge-sheet no change in the facts situation could be brought to the notice of the Judge, nor the Sessions Judge has considered the matter on merits after the charge-sheet, but merely on the ground of parity of bail granted to Jivrajbhai Ramjibhai Satvara (Dabhi) by this Court, the bail applications were allowed.

3.1 Mr. Khandheria submitted that the victim – Hafizaben Dilavarkhan Pathan had challenged the bail order of Jivrajbhai Ramjibhai Satvara (Dabhi) by filing Criminal Appeal No.627 of 2021 (arising out of SLP (crl.) No.4735/2020). He submits that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction has set aside the order dated 30.09.2020 of this Court granting bail to Jivrajbhai Ramjibhai Satvara (Dabhi) and he as respondent no.2 in the matter was directed to surrender within a period of one week from the date of order i.e. 16th July, 2021.

3.2 Mr. Khandheria submits that role of the present respondents, who are accused in the matters, are comparatively graver than that of Jivrajbhai Ramjibhai Satvara (Dabhi) and since the bail applications were granted of all the accused only on the ground of parity as that of bail granted to Jivrajbhai Ramjibhai Satvara (Dabhi) and when the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cancelled his bail; thus, urged to cancel the bail granted to the accused.

4. Mr. Hardik Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that, State also takes objection to the bail granted to the accused whose bail was also challenged by the victim, since there was no change of facts situation, even after filing of the chargesheet, Mr. Mehta submits that learned Sessions Judge has not appreciated the facts of the case to consider the bail applications, but merely on the ground of bail granted to Jivrajbhai Ramjibhai Satvara (Dabhi), the Sessions Judge allowed them to be on bail, which according to Mr. Mehta requires to be cancelled, since the order granting bail to co-accused has been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

5. Countering the submissions, Mr. Brij V.Sheth, learned advocate for the respondents accused submits that the respondents accused are wrongly roped in the FIR and they are not guilty; thus submits that they are entitled for the bail. Mr. Sheth submits that all the family members have been wrongly and out of malice implicated in the offence, and further submits that the bail orders so impugned were passed after following the due process of law taking into consideration the facts and circumstances. Mr. Sheth submits that a false case has been lodged by the complainant by creating about 11 eye witnesses. He submits that there is no allega