Cancellation of bail requires evidence that the original order was perverse, arbitrary, or illegal, or that the accused has abused their post-bail liberty. Absent proof of such irregularities or supervening misconduct, the court will not interfere with a reasoned bail order.

ORDER :

UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI, J.

1. The applicant herein, who is the original complainant in the FIR which came to be registered by Gondal Taluka Police Station vide Part-A-I CR. No. 11213016250314 of 2025, under Sections 108, 61(2) and 54 of the BNS, 2023 has preferred the present applications under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for cancellation of bail, which was granted to the respondent No.2 in both the applications, who are shown as accused Nos.4 and 3 respectively in the charge sheet.

2. The applicant has challenged the bails, which were granted to the respondent – accused Dineshbhai Palabhai Patar, by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge of Gondal, vide order passed in CRMA No.188 of 2025 on 15.05.2025 and to the respondent – accused Sanjaybhai Hemantbhai Pandit, by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge of Gondal, vide order passed in CRMA No.189 of 2025 on 15.05.2025.

3. The applicant, who is the brother of deceased Amit, by way of his application has brought on record the series of events, which had culminated in the suicide committed by his brother. It is pertinent to observe that, both the respondents – accused have not been named in the said FIR.

4. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Sumit Sikarwar for the applicant, learned advocate Ms. U. K. Mehta for the respondent No.2 – accused Sanjaybhai Pandit, learned advocate Mr. Darshil Kanthariya for the respondent – accused Dineshbhai Patar and learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi for the respondent No.1 – State.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Sikarwar has argued at length and has submitted that, both the respondent Nos.2 – accused have played active roles in getting the complaint registered against his deceased brother Amit under the POCSO Act, by the Juvenile in conflict with law and co-accused Pooja. Mr. Sikarwar has submitted that, the deceased Amit was lured into a honey trap by the juvenile in conflict with law and co-accused Pooja and as per their conspiracy, both of them had gone to the Rajkot A-Division Police Station, where, both the respondents – accused were present and they had assured the juvenile in conflict with law and co-accused Pooja that, they would handle everything. Mr. Sikarwar has also drawn the attention of the Court towards the chequered past of the respondent – accused Sanjay Pandit. Further submitting that, the Sanad of respondent – accused Sanjay Pandit was cancelled twice by the Bar Council of Gujarat by way of disciplinary action, which was affirmed by the higher authority.

5.1. Mr. Sikarwar has also submitted that, though both the respondents – accused were not named in the FIR, during the course of investigation it was revealed that, they had actively participated in the crime by being part of the criminal conspiracy, which was hatched by the main accused Anirudhasinh Mahipatsinh Jadeja.

5.2. Thus, considering the facts which had come on record, the learned Sessions Judge had committed an error in granting bail to the respondents – accused No.2, and hence the present applications be allowed and the regular bails being granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Gondal to both the respondents – accused in CRMA No.188 of 2025 and CRMA No.189 of 2025 dated 15.05.2025 be hereby cancelled, and they be sent to judicial custody.

6. Heard learned advocate Mr. Darshil Kantharia and Ms. U. K. Mehta for the respective respondents – accused. Both the learned advocates have submitted that, except there being charge of criminal conspiracy, there is no other evidence against both the respondents – accused. Both the respondents – accused were present at the police station as advocates for the victim girl, and by virtue of their professional competence, they had advised the juvenile in conflict with law to lodge the FIR. It is further submitted that, the respondent – accused Sanjaybhai Hemantbhai Pandit and the main accused Anirudhasinh Mahipatsinh Jadeja were not friends, but, in a relationship of advocate and client. Hence, considering