VIKRAM KANTILAL AAZAD ( VIKRAMBHAI KANTILAL PARMAR)versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

  R/CR.A/389/2026(GJHC240107172026)                          ORDER DATED: 21/08/2026




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
  R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO. 389 of 2026
==========================================================
    VIKRAM KANTILAL AAZAD ( VIKRAMBHAI KANTILAL PARMAR)
                            Versus
                  STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAHADWEEP APURVA(13005) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR M. ASIF D DASADIYA(10521) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR JAYDIPSINH J SOLANKI(13668) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MAITHILI MEHTA, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                    Date : 21/08/2026
                                        ORDER

[1.0] ADMIT. Learned APP Ms. Maithili Mehta and learned
advocate Mr. Jaydipsinh J. Solanki waive service of notice of
admission for respective respondents.

[2.0] By way of present appeal under Section 14-A of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “Atrocity Act”), the
appellant – original complainant has prayed to quash and set
aside the impugned order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the
learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Criminal
Misc. Application No.3549 of 2025, whereby the learned Judge
has rejected the application Iled by the present appellant
requesting to cancel the regular bail granted to the respondent
No.2 – original accused.

[3.0] The respondent No.2 herein is the original accused who has
been granted regular bail by the coordinate Bench vide order
dated      23.09.2025          in     connection      with   FIR     being       C.R.


                                        Page 1 of 4
  R/CR.A/389/2026(GJHC240107172026)                     ORDER DATED: 21/08/2026




No.11192015250902 of 2025 registered with Changodar Police
Station, Ahmedabad for the oJences punishable under Sections
296(b), 351(3) of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va)
of the Atrocity Act. While granting the said appeal, the
coordinate Bench imposed condition Nos.[e] and [g] whereby the
coordinate Bench ordered the respondent No.2 – accused to
mark presence before the concerned police station on alternate
monday of every English calendar month for a period of six
months between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. and not to enter into
the revenue limits of District Ahmedabad for a period of 12
months, except to mark presence before the concerned police
station and to attend the court proceedings. However, it is
alleged that the respondent No.2 – accused has committee
breach of aforesaid conditions and has never marked his
presence before the concerned police station. Therefore, the
appellant – original complainant Iled application seeking
cancellation of bail which came to be rejected. Hence, present
appeal is preferred.

[4.0] Heard learned advocate for the appellant, learned APP for
respondent – State of Gujarat and learned advocate for the
accused.

[5.0] Learned advocate for the appellant and learned APP have
submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has committed an
error in not considering the yardstick for cancellation of bail and
though the accused did not mark presence before the concerned
police station and entered into District Ahmedabad prior to
completion        of    12     months,     learned   Sessions    Judge       has
erroneously rejected the application Iled by the present


                                      Page 2 of 4
  R/CR.A/389/2026(GJHC240107172026)                 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2026




appellant. Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal.

[6.0] Learned advocate for the accused has opposed the present
appeal by submitting that the accused has never committed
breach of any of the conditions of bail granted by the coordinate
Bench of this Court and even otherwise, the charge-sheet is Iled
and accused will abide by all and any condition that may be
imposed by this Court. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the
present appeal.

[7.0] At the outset, it is worth to mention that the respondent
No.2 – accused was enlarged on regular bail and criteria and
yardstick for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are altogether
diJerent. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs.
Subramani Gopalakrishnan and Ors. reported in (2011)5 SCC 296
as well as in the case of Dolat Ram and Ors. vs. State of Haryana
reported in (1995)1 SCC 349 wherein it has been held that in
absence of any supervening circumstances and merely on
technical breach and merely the accused entered into revenue
District of Ahmedabad or village is not a ground to cancel the bail
in absence of any evidence with regard to tampering with
evidence or threatening any witness. Further, the respondent
No.2 – accused is regularly attending the Court proceedings and
even charge-sheet is also Iled and hence, question does not arise
to appear before the police station. This Court is of considered
view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not
committed any error in dismissing the application seeking
cancellation of regular bail.




                                      Page 3 of 4
  R/CR.A/389/2026(GJHC240107172026)                                                ORDER DATED: 21/08/2026




[7.1] At this stage, learned advocate for the appellant has
submitted that he had requested for Military force near his house
for protection purpose and has requested to consider the said
prayer. It is needless to say that present appeal is Iled seeking
cancellation of regular bail granted to respondent No.2 and the
said submission is beyond the scope of present appeal and
therefore, the request is not acceded to and if the appellant is
aggrieved and if any such prevailing circumstances arises, it is
always open for the appellant – original complainant to Ile
appropriate proceedings.

[8.0] In wake of the aforesaid discussion, present appeal being
devoid of any merit stands dismissed.


                                                                  (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
 Digitally signed by: AJAY CHANDRAN MENON(HC00939), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 21/08/2026 17:38:58




                                                   Page 4 of 4