Non-cooperation with bail conditions and investigating agencies warrants bail cancellation. Securing the accused's presence for trial and preventing tampering with evidence is crucial.

JUDGMENT :

1. This application is preferred under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the applicant – State of Gujarat for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent herein - original accused by this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Vipul M. Pancholi) vide order dated 11.3.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.2303 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 65(A)(E), 98(2), 116(B) and 81 of the Prohibition Act.

2. Heard Ms.M. D. Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the applicant – State of Gujarat and Mr.D. K. Chaudhari, learned advocate for the respondent – original accused.

3. Ms.Mehta, learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that after granting bail, the respondent accused has committed breach of conditions imposed by the Court and also not co-operated with the investigation and even did not remain present before the concerned Police Station as well as before the Trial Court. She has submitted the report to the effect that the accused did not remain present before the Trial Court on any of the occasions and, therefore, the Trial Court has issued non-bailable warrant against the accused and because of non-availability, the trial could not commence. She has urged before the Court that the application may be allowed and the bail granted to the respondent accused may be cancelled.

4. Learned advocate for the respondent – accused is not in a position to defence the accused as allegations made in the present application with regard to committing breach of conditions imposed by this Court. Learned advocate for the accused has not filed an affidavit on behalf of the accused to controvert his submission.

5. I have perused the FIR and the impugned order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the application for regular bail. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates appearing on behalf of both the sides and the averments made in the application. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, while granting bail, imposed certain conditions which reads as under :

(a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

(b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

(c) surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

(d) not leave the India without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;

(e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station between 1st to 10th day of every English calendar month for a period of six months between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.;

(f) furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of the Sessions Court;

6. It was pointed out by the learned APP for the applicant before this Court that the respondent accused has never remained present before the Trial Court during the trial and has committed breach of conditions imposed by the Court. It seems that after releasing him on bail, the respondent accused has not co-operated with the investigation and also not personally present before the Trial Court. After enlarging the accused on bail, he has neither complied with such conditions imposed by this Court nor present before the Trial Court and because of non-availability of him, the trial could not commence. Considering the fact that the accused is involved in the offence punishable under Sections 65(A)(E), 98(2), 116(B) and 81 of the Prohibition Act and as the accused is permanent resident of Rajasthan, the Coordinate Bench of this Court thought it fit to secure the presence of the accused at the time of trial and to monitor his further activity, the condition no.7(e) was imposed, but the respondent – accused has flouted the said condition and not complied with the same. It appears that the accused, after releasing on bail, has neither remained present before the concerned Trial Court on any of the occasions nor has marked his presence before the concerned Police St