CAV ORDER

1. The applicant – State of Gujarat has preferred the present application against the respondent – accused, praying for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2. The offence came to be registered against the respondent – accused by DCB Police Station, Vadodara vide I-C.R. No. 11196010210001 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(i) & (ii), 3(2), 3(4) and 3(5) of the Gujarat Control Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015.

3. The respondent – accused had preferred regular bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Sessions and Special Judge of Vadodara vide Criminal Misc. Application No. 2192 of 2021, which came to be allowed by the learned Sessions and Special Judge of Vadodara on 07.10.2021 subject to conditions. The applicant – State has challenged the said order by way of this application.

4. The applicant State by way of this application has submitted that, the order of the learned Sessions and Special Judge of Vadodara is illegal, improper and against the provisions of law and against criminal jurisdiction. It is further mentioned that, the learned Sessions and Special Judge ought to have considered that, there are 5 offences registered against the respondent – accused, which are serious in nature and which relate to offences against the body. It is also mentioned that, the learned Sessions and Special Judge of Vadodara ought to have considered the confessional statement of the accused, which came to be recorded under Section 16 of the GUJCTOC Act, by the Investigation Officer, and, the antecedents against the respondent accused being serious in nature.

4.1 Learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi has submitted that, the respondent accused having been enlarged on bail by the learned Sessions and Special Judge, Vadodara was subject to conditions wherein, condition no. (a) was about the respondent accused not to take undue advantage or misuse liberty, condition no. (c) was about the respondent accused not indulging himself in identical or any other offence. It is pertinent to observe that, the learned Sessions and Special Judge of Vadodara by way of paragraph no. 3 in the operative part of the order had observed that,

“breach of any condition shall invite cancellation of bail invariably.”

4.2 Learned APP Mr. Joshi has drawn the attention of the court to the fact that, one more FIR came to be registered against the applicant on 08.08.2025 i.e. after he was released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge and Special Judge of Vadodara, by the Panigate Police Station wherein, he was named as accused no. 1. The said FIR was registered vide Part A I- C.R. No. 11196017250371 of 2025, for the offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 115(2), 296(b), 351(3), 54 of BNS, 2023 and Section 135 of G.P. Act.

4.3 Thus, learned APP has submitted that the respondent – accused had committed a clear and unequivocal breach of two of the above mentioned bail conditions, and hence, has invited cancellation of bail.

5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgement of Ms. P. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 448 has discussed the circumstances where bail granted to the accused under Section 439(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 can be cancelled. The said paras are reproduced as under:

“24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling bail once granted, the Court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial. To put it differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court would be loath to interfere with an order passed by the Court below granting bail but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an order is