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

1314 of 2019 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No √

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

MUMANBHAI POPATBHAI BHARWAD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR R G CHAUDHARY(6428) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR BH SOLANKI(5353) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 17/03/2026

JUDGMENT

[1.0] By way of present application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), the applicant – original complainant has prayed to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 – original accused vide order dated 22.07.2019 passed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in the proceedings of Criminal Misc. Application No.2196/2019.

[2.0] A complaint being I-CR No.88/2019 came to be filed by the present applicant – original complainant against respondent No.2 – original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) in connection with which the respondent No.2 herein – original accused filed an application being Criminal Misc. Application No.2196/2019 seeking anticipatory bail which came to be allowed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) vide order dated 22.07.2019 subject to certain terms and conditions wherein one of the conditions imposed was that the original accused will not involve himself into any offence of any nature. It is the case of the present applicant that despite aforesaid conditions, the respondent No.2 – accused has committed three offences for which FIR has been registered and therefore, the present applicant – original complainant has filed the present application seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 – original accused.

[3.0] Heard learned advocate appearing for the respective parties.

[4.0] Learned advocate Mr. R.G. Chaudhary appearing for the applicant has submitted that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is illegal, improper and perverse without considering or appreciating the evidence on record. He has further submitted that accused is a public servant and clerk in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad and has fabricated and forged the rent agreement in collusion with Notary. Though the Investigating Officer opposed the bail application, the learned Sessions Judge without assigning any reasons straightway granted anticipatory bail to the accused. Even, learned Sessions Judge has imposed the condition on the respondent – accused that the accused shall not tamper with the prosecution witness and shall not indulge in any type of similar activity though three offences are registered against the accused. He has referred to list of eight cases registered against the accused and stated that without assigning any reason qua antecedents of the accused, the learned Sessions Judge has granted anticipatory bail to the accused. Hence, he has requested to allow the present application and cancel the bail granted to respondent No.2 – original accused. He has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanwar Singh Meena vs. State of Rajasthan [(2012)12 SCC 180]; Neeru Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 2015 SC 3703]; Prakash Kadam and Etc. vs. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta [(2011)6 SCC 189]; Deepak Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2022)8 SCC 559] as well as decision of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Desai Jigishbhai @ Rajubhai Nagjibhai [2016 JX (Guj) 104] and Yashwantkumar Hiralal Patel vs. Hiteshkumar Chunnalal Agrawal [2017