IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.

9789 of 2025 In R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION/17497/2024 ==========================================================

BHUPENDRA PRANLAL GHARIWALA & ORS.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR RAXIT J DHOLAKIA(3709) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS. KRINA CALLA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 SHAISHAV S PANDIT(7363) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 10/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. The Petitioner has filed the present Application under Section 483(3) read with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the following prayers:

“A. Admit this Criminal Misc. Application;

B. Allow this Criminal Misc. Application by recalling the order granting regular bail to the Respondent No.2 and thereby be please to cancel the bail granted to Respondent No.2 in connection with offence registered as C.R. No. 11210005240762 of 2024 registered with Athwalines Police Station, District Surat for the offences punishable under sections 409, 420 of IPC in the interest of Jutice.

C. Grant ad-interim relief in terms of para (B) above.

D. Any other and further relief / s that may be deemed fit, just and proper may kindly be granted in the interest of justice.”

2. The facts leading to the filing of the Application are such that Respondent No.2 herein had allegedly committed an offence punishable under Section 409 and420 of the Indian Penal Code and the FIR being registration no. 11210005240762 of 2024 was registered against him with Athwalines Police Station at Surat City. He had approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Application No. 17497 of 2024 seeking regular bail. During the course of hearing of the said application, a statement came to be made by learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.2 that out of 26 victims, 24 had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”) with him and the amount which was accepted by Respondent No,2 from them has already been returned to them. The remaining two victims had not signed the MoU. However, it was stated before this court that Respondent No.2 was ready to pay Rs. 11 Lakhs to those two victims within a period of four months from the date of his release Considering the aforesaid statement made on behalf of Respondent No.2 herein he was ordered to be enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 5.09.2024. While ordering him to be enlarged on bail, this court had also imposed condition upon Respondent No2 to file an undertaking before the learned trial court to the effect that he shall abide by the statement made on his behalf before this court. Respondent No.2, however, neither furnished any such undertaking before the learned trial court nor did he pay the amount of Rs. 11 Lakhs to the two victims. Therefore, the applicants herein have approached this court by filing the present application praying for cancellation of bail granted to Respondent No.2.

3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. R.J.Dholakia appearing for the applicants. He submitted that upon the statement being made on behalf of Respondent No2 that the matter had been amicably settled between the Respondent No.2 and 24 victims. It was further stated that Respondent No2 was ready to pay the amount of Rs.11 Lakhs to the remaining two victims. Pursuant to the MoU entered into between 24 victims who are the applicants herein and Respondent No.2, Respondent No.2 had issued cheques towards payments of the amounts which he had received from the applicants herein. However, all those cheques issued by Respondent No2 were dishonoured. Moreover, the amount of Rs.11 Lakhs is also not paid by Respondent No.2 to the remaining victims nor has he furnished any undertaking as per the condition imposed by this court vide order dated 5.09.2024. He further submitted that the MoU and the statement made before