IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO. 2596 of 2025 ========================================================

RIYA NATUBHAI GANGADIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MS MAMTA RAJPUT FOR MR CHIRAG A PRAJAPATI(8468) for the Appellant(s)

No. 1 MR BJ PRIYADARSHI(6016) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2 MR JK SHAH ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 06/04/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Mamta Rajput for learned Advocate Mr.Chirag Prajapati on behalf of the appellant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. J.K. Shah on behalf of the respondent no.1- State and learned Advocate Mr. B.J. Priyadarshi on behalf of respondent no.2- original accused.

2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant- original complainant to cancel the regular bail granted to opponent no. 2 by quashing and setting aside the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the 7^th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural in Criminal Misc. Application No. 107 of 2025 in connection with F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. 11191006240346 of 2024 registered with Bodakdev Police Station, Ahmedabad for offences punishable under Section 69, 115(1), 351(2)(3), 296(B) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita 2023 and Sections

3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(5), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. Learned Advocate Ms. Mamta Rajput on behalf of the appellant would draw the attention of this Court to an order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Court, enlarging the opponent no. 2 on regular bail and whereas it is submitted that though serious offences had been alleged, the learned Sessions Court, had not recorded any reasons for releasing the opponent no. 2 on regular bail.

4. Learned Advocate would also submit that the learned Sessions Court had also not imposed any reasonable conditions to ensure that the opponent no. 2 attends trial more particularly learned Advocate would submit that the application, praying for being released on regular bail as well as the order in question, is bereft of any averment or observation that the appellant requires to travel in the country regularly or that the respondent no. 2 requires to travel outside the country frequently yet, the learned Sessions Court has neither imposed a condition that the opponent no. 2 should not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the learned Sessions Court and the learned Sessions Court has also not imposed the condition of depositing the passport and of not leaving India without prior permission.

5. Learned Advocate would submit that the said conditions being the minimum requirements, therefore apart from the fact that the order of the learned Sessions Court is without assigning any reasons, learned Sessions Court has also not ensured that the opponent no. 2 remains present during the course of the trial. Thus it is requested that this Court may not set aside the order releasing the appellant on regular bail.

6. Submissions made by learned Advocate Ms. Rajput have been supported by learned APP Mr. Shah for the State. Learned APP would submit that while the order in question, states about the offence which has been committed by the present opponent no. 2 yet, the order is not reflective of the reason which had weighed with the learned Sessions Court while enlarging the present opponent no.

2 on regular bail.

7. Learned APP would submit that the learned Sessions Court has also not placed enough conditions to ensure that the present opponent no. 2 is available at the stage of trial.

8. The present order has been supported by learned Advocate Mr.

Priyadarshi on behalf of the original accused. Learned Advocate would submit that the order inter alia reflects application of mind more particularly as