IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
Binaben Wd/o Ashokbhai Panchal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & others – Respondent
R/Criminal Misc.Application No. 9792 of 2016
Decided on : 01-07-2023
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 - Cancellation of bail - Abetment of suicide - Application is preferred by complainant for cancellation of bail granted to original accused – Held, Court cannot interfere with order passed by Trial Court except in case of any overwhelming circumstance or any breach of condition or any other special circumstance shown by applicant – Court is of opinion that in present case, when respondent original accused has been released on bail and has not committed any breach of conditions imposed by Court and when there is no overwhelming circumstances, there is no reason to exercise power under Section 439(2) of Code and cancel bail granted in favour of respondent - original accused – Application dismissed.
ORDER :
1. This application is preferred under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the complainant for cancellation of bail granted to the original accused by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 21.11.2015 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 907 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the offence registered being I.C.R. No.150 of 2015 before Langhnaj Police Station, Mehsana.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant's late husband Ashokbhai Amratlal Panchal was engaged in trade of labour contractor along with his brother Deepakbhai. They both were also got Government work. In connection of the said work, there was a demand of money as Government contract entailed delayed payment in respect of the work.
Under the circumstances, the Applicant's husband was compelled to borrow money from the market with high rate of interest and therefore, he remained under constant pressure. The Applicant's husband was also telephonically contacted with lenders, who were pressing for their money and interest, of which the Applicant was aware.
2.1 The Applicant's husband had also borrowed some amounts of money from the Respondent no.2. As the Respondent no.2 lent money to the Applicant's husband, the said Respondent no.2 was pressing hard for recovery of his money along with interest.
2.2 On 24.10.2015, husband of the applicant left home in the morning at around 8:00 a.m. under stress and duress. Later on in the afternoon when the Applicant tried to contact her husband, he could not be contacted and therefore, the Applicant called up her brother-in-law viz. Deepkbhai and requested him to look out for her husband. When the Applicant's brother-in-law made inquires in the School at Village Tundali, Ashokbhai’s dead body was found hanging in the class room of the said School. The Police authorities consequently came to the scene and started conducting their inquiries. Subsequently, the dead body of deceased Ashokbhai was taken to Mehsana Civil Hospital for the purpose of performing postmortem. After performing the rituals and the cremation, the Applicant was given her husband's mobile instrument by her brother-in-law Deepakbhai. The Applicant was also informed by Deepakbhai that there were many calls from particular unknown number and number belongs to respondent No.2, from whom the husband of the applicant had taken loan and who had sent messages to the deceased threatening him. Due to the harassment the deceased had committed suicide.
2.3 Therefore, the wife of the applicant had filed complaint before the Langhnaj Police Station being I.C.R. No. 150 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent No.2.
2.4 In connection with the offence registered against the accused, the accused approached the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Mehsana seeking anticipatory bail. After perusing the record and the evidence placed on record, the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana vide order dated 21.11.2015 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 907 of 2015 granted anticipatory bail to the accused person and therefore, the original complainant has filed present application for cancellation of bail granted to the original accused.
3. Heard Mr. Tejas M. Barot, learned Counsel for the applicant, Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned APP for the respondent No.1 State of Gujarat and Ms. Dhara M. Shah, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 original accused.
4. Mr. Barot learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the impugned order is ex facie illegal and arbitrary and that the same is passed without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that considering the allegations and seriousness alleged against the accused persons, learned Sessions Judge ought not have granted anticipatory bail to the accused person. He further submitted that the accused is involved in serious crime and committed
Abdul Basit Alias Raju And Ors. Vs. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary And Another
Bhagirath Singh S/o. Mahipat Singh Judeja Vs. State of Gujarat; reported in AIR 1984 SC 372
Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Bhoopendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1279 of 2021)
Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. Subramani Gopalakrishnan & Anr.
Dolat Ram Vs. State of Haryana
Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) reported in (1978) 1 SCC 118
Kanwar Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Manoj Kumar Khokhar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Ms. X. vs State of Telangana & Anr., reported in (2018) 16 SCC 511
Myakala Dharmarajam & Ors., v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar - (2020) 2 SCC 118
Narendra Amin Vs. State of Gujarat
Puran vs. Rambilas reported in (2001) 6 SCC 338
Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Bihar
The main legal point established in the judgment is the misuse of bail and the legal principles governing the cancellation of bail.
The court has the authority to cancel bail if the order suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice, and if the accused misuses their liberty, interferes with the investigati....
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Amit Lahoti For the Respondent : D. R. Sharma, V. D. Sharma, A. K. Nirankari
The main legal point established in the judgment is that consistent violation of court directions and non-compliance with previous court orders can warrant the cancellation of bail. Additionally, the....
Superior court interferes with bail grant only if order arbitrary, perverse or ignores material like offence gravity; distinct from cancellation for supervening circumstances.
Bail should not be cancelled without clear evidence of violation of conditions or misuse of liberty, as established by the court's analysis.
Grant of bail though being a discretionary order, calls for exercise of such discretion in a judicious manner and is dependent upon contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by Court.
Cancellation of bail requires cogent evidence of supervening circumstances; mere subsequent charges do not automatically justify cancellation if they do not affect the original trial.
The significance of statements recorded under Section 164 and Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code in considering applications for anticipatory bail cancellation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.