Cancellation of bail requires substantial grounds indicating misuse or misconduct; mere allegations of injustice without evidence do not suffice for revocation.

JUDGMENT :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent State.

2. Common question of law and facts arise in both the petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.

3. Both the Criminal Misc. Applications u/s 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been preferred for cancellation of bail against the orders dated 1.9.2023 passed by the learned City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.6940 of 2023 and 6976 of 2023 grating bail to the accused, who are arraigned as accused in the one and same FIR being Part No.A 11191011230216 of 2023 registered with the Ahmedabad City DCB Police Station for the offences punishable u/s 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the IPC.

4. Criminal Misc. Application Nos.17864 of 2023 and 17865 of 2023 have been filed to cancel the regular bail granted to accused Bimalbhai Parikh and Kinnarbhai Shah respectively by the learned Sessions Court.

5. The facts in nutshell to decide present applications are that the first informant Nitinbhai Rajguru has lodged the aforementioned FIR against the officers of the Colour Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd., namely, Mr. Atulbhai Shah, Manager, Kinnarbhai Shah, General Manager and Mr. Bimal Parikh, Chairman. The allegations levelled against them in the FIR are that the first informant had applied for loan from the Colour Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. This loan was mortgage loan. According to the FIR, all the accused, in connivance with each other, by forging the signature of the first informant as well as guarantor forged the document to obtain top up mortgage loan in tune of Rs.55 lakh and as such, have committed the aforesaid offences.

6. Accused Mr. Bimal Parikh moved Criminal Misc. Application No.6340 of 2023 before the learned Sessions Court for regular bail u/s 439 of the Code. The learned Sessions Court after considering the facts on record, exercised discretion in favour of the accused and enlarged him on regular bail on same terms and conditions as mentioned in the impugned order. These conditions were imposed upon the petitioner on the undertaking given by the accused. Apart from the said conditions, other conditions are also imposed while the accused was enlarged on bail.

7. In same fashion, another accused Mr. Kinnarbhai Shah moved Criminal Misc. Application No.6976 of 2023 before the learned Sessions Court for regular bail u/s 439 of the Code and the learned Sessions Court has granted conditional bail.

8. The first informant being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, preferred present petitions u/s 439(2) of the Code.

9. Heard learned advocate Mr. HB Raval for the respective petitioner as well as learned APP.

10. What has been argued by learned advocate Mr. HB Raval is that the learned Sessions Court has committed error in granting bail in a serious criminal matters. He would further submit that the learned Sessions Court has ignored the basic principles of grant or refusal of bail in a serious economic offence. He would further submit that the learned Sessions Court has ignored the gravity of the offence while granting bail to both the accused and thereby, serious error has been committed. What more submitted by learned advocate Mr. HB Raval is that the learned Sessions Court has failed to exercise discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with