RAJESHBHAI CAPTAIN KESHVANPILLAI JOHNversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.MA/18928/2026                                       CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026




                                                          Reserved On   : 17/08/2026
                                                          Pronounced On : 20/08/2026

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
                        18928 of 2026

==========================================================
                   RAJESHBHAI CAPTAIN KESHVANPILLAI JOHN
                                   Versus
                         STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
ALAY A DAVE(8219) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NIRAJ SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER


                                        CAV ORDER


1.                This is an application for cancellation of bail preferred

by the present applicant – original complainant under Section

483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (‘the BNSS’ for

short), seeking quashing and setting aside the impugned order

dated 30.05.2026, passed by the learned trial Court i.e. City Civil

&      Session      Judge,     Ahmedabad        in      Criminal   Misc.     Application

No.3722 of 2026, whereby the learned trial Court has granted

regular bail to the respondent–original accused in connection with

FIR being C.R. No.11191023260103 of 2026 registered with Vadaj

Police       Station,      District     Ahmedabad         City,    for   the     offences

punishable         under     Sections   316(2),      316(4), 318(3),     61(2), 336(2),

336(3), 338, 340(2) and 344 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita.



2.                Rule. Learned APP waive service of notice of rule for

and on behalf of respondent – State.



                                         Page 1 of 18
  R/CR.MA/18928/2026                                                 CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026




3.1            Learned       advocate          appearing        for     the    applicant      has

vehemently submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to

appreciate     the     gravity        and    seriousness        of     the    offence    alleged

against the respondent–accused and has mechanically granted bail.

It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed without

proper consideration of the material available on record, which has

adversely affected the ongoing investigation. It is further contended

that the possibility of the respondent–accused tampering with the

prosecution evidence and influencing witnesses cannot be ruled out.



3.2.           It is further submitted that while considering the bail

application preferred by the respondent–accused, the learned trial

Court did not adequately examine the evidence collected during the

course of investigation and therefore, committed a grave error in

exercising its discretion in favour of the accused. The learned

advocate has drawn attention to the serious allegations levelled

against the respondent–accused in the FIR and submitted that the

nature     and     gravity       of    such       accusations          were     not     properly

appreciated by the learned trial Court while granting bail.



3.3            Referring to the documents and material collected by

the    Investigating      Officer,          learned        advocate     for    the    applicant

submitted      that    ample      evidence         has      been      gathered     during     the

investigation, which, prima facie, establishes the direct involvement

of the respondent–accused in the commission of the alleged offence.

Despite the availability of such incriminating material, the learned



                                            Page 2 of 18
     R/CR.MA/18928/2026                                                 CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026




trial     Court      failed       to    assign     proper          weight     to   the    same      and

erroneously granted bail to the respondent–accused.



3.4                It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order

granting bail suffers from non-application of mind and improper

appreciation of the material on record. Considering the seriousness

of     the    offence,       the       strength    of        the    evidence       collected   during

investigation and the likelihood of prejudice to a fair investigation,

it is submitted that the present application may be allowed by

cancelling         the     bail    granted        to    the        respondent–accused          in   the

interest of justice.



4                  Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

State        has    adopted        the     submissions             advanced        by    the   learned

advocate for the applicant and has further submitted that the

impugned order granting bail to the respondent–accused is contrary

to the material available on record. It is contended that the

learned Trial Court has granted bail without properly appreciating

the      evidence         collected      during        the    course     of    investigation        and

without taking into consideration the gravity and seriousness of

the offence alleged against the respondent–accused.



4.1                It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court

has failed to consider the affidavit filed by the Investigating

Officer, wherein specific grounds were raised opposing the grant of

bail. The contents of the said affidavit, which were material and

relevant for deciding the bail application, have not been duly



                                              Page 3 of 18
  R/CR.MA/18928/2026                                               CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026




considered      by      the     learned      Trial        Court     while      exercising       its

discretion in favour of the respondent–accused.



4.2            It is, therefore, submitted that the learned Trial Court

has exercised its discretion in an erroneous manner and that the

impugned order deserves to be set aside and this Hon'ble Court

may be pleased to allow the present application, cancel the bail

granted to the respondent–accused.



5.1            Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the

respective parties and upon perusal of the impugned order passed

by the learned Trial Court as well as the material available on

record, this Court is of the view that the present application has

been filed merely on the basis of presumptions and assumptions,

without placing on record any cogent material or demonstrating

the    existence       of    any    supervening           or    prevailing     circumstances

warranting      interference        with      the    order        granting     bail.   In       the

absence of any substantive material to justify the relief sought,

the application does not merit consideration.



5.2.   Considering the role attributed to the present applicant is

that   there     are        allegations    that     the        accused    nos.1   and       2    in

connivance with each other had prepared false bills towards the

rent expenses of hotel Asha situated at Jamnagar and the same

were prepared during their employment and the same was passed

after verification which was found that all the accused had in

connivance      with        each   other     misappropriated             the   funds    of      the



                                           Page 4 of 18
  R/CR.MA/18928/2026                                               CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026




complainant.        The      fact   remains      that    respondent          no.2     was   not

working      with      the     company       and     the     role        attributed    to   the

respondent no.2 is receiving the said amount from the complainant

who happens to be the uncle and thereafter the said amount was

transferred in the account of other persons whom respondent no.2

knew.




5.3 The prosecution case, in brief, is that Accused Nos.1 and 2, in

collusion    with      each      other,    prepared        false     bills       showing    rent

expenses for Hotel Asha situated at Jamnagar. These bills were

processed and cleared during their employment. On verification, it

was found that the bank account mentioned in the documents did

not belong to the person or entity in whose name the expenses

were shown. It is the case of the prosecution that due to this,

funds were wrongly diverted and the complainant company suffered

loss.



5.4 It is further alleged that by following this method, the accused

persons,     acting       with      common       intention,        misappropriated          and

diverted company funds. The total loss is stated to be around

Rs.3,60,08,222/-. The chargesheet refers to the preparation of bills,

their approval, movement of money through different accounts, and

the role of each accused in the said process. As far as Respondent

No.2 is concerned, the material collected during investigation has

to be seen in light of his specific role. It is not in dispute that

Respondent       No.2        was    not    an      employee         of     the     complainant



                                          Page 5 of 18
  R/CR.MA/18928/2026                                         CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026




company. There is no allegation that he was involved in preparing,

checking, or approving the bills related to Hotel Asha. There is

also nothing on record to show that he had any control or

responsibility         over   the   accounts       or   financial    affairs    of    the

complainant company.



5.5. The main allegation against Respondent No.2 is that his bank

account     was        used   for   receiving    part   of   the    alleged     diverted

amount. The investigation further shows that the amount received

in his account was later transferred to another person known to

him. It is also stated that the amount came to him from Accused

No.1, who is said to be his uncle. Thus, the allegation against

Respondent No.2 is mainly based on the flow of money through

his account and its further transfer.



5.6. It is important to note that the investigation is already

complete and the chargesheet was filed on 17.04.2026. The case of

the prosecution rests on documents such as bank records, bills and

other material collected during investigation. There is no allegation

that after release on bail, Respondent No.2 has tried to interfere

with the investigation, tamper with evidence, influence witnesses,

or misuse the liberty granted to him.



5.7. The fact that Respondent No.2’s bank account was used for

receiving and transferring money is certainly a circumstance that

will be examined during trial. However, by itself, it cannot be

treated as final proof of his involvement in the entire alleged



                                        Page 6 of 18
  R/CR.MA/18928/2026                                         CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026




offence. Whether he had knowledge of the transaction, whether he

was part of any conspiracy, and whether the movement of money

was part of a planned act are all issues that will have to be

proved during trial on the basis of evidence.



5.8. It is also relevant that the main allegations of preparing and

processing false bills relate to Accused Nos.1 and 2, who were

employees of the complainant company. Respondent No.2 was not

employed with the company. Therefore, his alleged role is different

in nature and has to be examined only on the basis of material

specifically linking him to the offence.



5.9.    The    order     granting    regular        bail   was   passed      after    the

chargesheet had already been filed on 17.04.2026. This shows that

the Court was aware that investigation was complete and the

prosecution material was already on record. No fresh circumstance

has been shown to indicate that Respondent No.2 has misused the

liberty granted to him after being released on bail.



5.10. It is a settled position of law that bail once granted should

not be cancelled lightly. Cancellation is justified only when there

are strong reasons such as misuse of liberty, attempt to influence

witnesses, tampering with evidence, likelihood of absconding, or

similar conduct. At the same time, the Court can interfere if the

order granting bail suffers from serious legal or factual error.



5.11.   In    the      present   case,    considering      the   role   attributed         to



                                         Page 7 of 18
  R/CR.MA/18928/2026                            CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026




Respondent No.2, the fact that he is not an employee of the

complainant company, the absence of any allegation of involvement

in preparation or approval of bills, the nature of allegation limited

to use of his bank account, the completion of investigation, and

filing of chargesheet, this Court does not find any new or strong

ground to cancel the bail already granted.



5.12. The allegations are no doubt serious and involve a large

amount of money. However, seriousness alone is not enough to

cancel bail, especially when investigation is complete and there is

no material showing misuse of liberty. The questions regarding his

knowledge, intention, and connection with other accused will be

decided during trial.



5.14           It is further pertinent to note that it was never the

case of the prosecution that the presence of the respondent–

accused was required for any further investigation.



5.15           The learned trial Court, while granting bail, imposed

stringent conditions to secure his presence and ensure that the

investigation and trial were not prejudiced. Significantly, since the

date of grant of bail, no untoward incident has been reported.



5.15           Moreover, it is not the case of the present applicant–

original complainant that the respondent–accused has, at any point

of time, tampered with the evidence, attempted to influence or

intimidate witnesses, obstructed the course of justice, or committed



                                Page 8 of 18
  R/CR.MA/18928/2026                                           CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026




breach of any of the conditions imposed while granting bail. In

the absence of any such supervening circumstance or material

demonstrating misuse of liberty by the respondent–accused, the

present application seeking cancellation of bail appears to have

been filed merely on the basis of conjectures and apprehensions,

which cannot constitute a valid ground for cancellation of bail in

law.



5.16           Upon a careful examination of the findings recorded

and the conclusions arrived at by the learned Judge, this Court

finds that all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case

have been duly considered. The impugned order reflects proper

application     of     mind    to   the     material     available    on    record,    and

detailed as well as cogent reasons have been assigned by the

learned Judge while passing the said order. This Court does not

find any perversity, illegality, or infirmity in the reasoning adopted

by the learned Trial Court warranting interference.



5.17           It      is   well    settled     that     the   parameters       governing

rejection of a bail application at the initial stage and cancellation

of bail already granted by a competent Court are distinct and

operate in different           spheres. Once bail has been granted, its

cancellation can be justified only upon the existence of cogent and

overwhelming circumstances, such as misuse of liberty by the

accused or the emergence of supervening circumstances warranting

such cancellation.




                                          Page 9 of 18
  R/CR.MA/18928/2026                                            CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026




5.18           In      the    present     case,    the    learned      advocate    for    the

applicant has failed to point out any supervening circumstance

that has arisen subsequent to the grant of bail. Furthermore, it is

not    even    the     case    of   the    applicant      and    the    State     that    the

respondent–accused has misused the liberty granted by the Court,

breached any of the conditions imposed, tampered with evidence,

influenced witnesses, or otherwise acted in a manner prejudicial to

the fair conduct of the proceedings. In the absence of any such

material, no case is made out for cancellation of the bail granted

by the competent Court.



5.19           In the case of P. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &

Anr., reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 552, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court    has enumerated             the    circumstances,       when      bail    could   be

canceled and one of the conditions stated therein is the misuse of

the liberty granted to the accused concerned by the Court by

involving himself in a subsequent crime.



5.20           Further, it would be fruitful to refer to the decision of

the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajwar Vs. Waseem reported

in 2024 INSC 438, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed

that the same Court which granted bail to an accused can cancel

the bail if there are serious allegations against him, even if the

accused has not misused the bail. If there are serious allegations

against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted

to him, such an order can be canceled. However, once bail is

granted, it ought not to be canceled in a mechanical manner. An



                                          Page 10 of 18
 R/CR.MA/18928/2026                                            CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026




unreasonable or perverse order of bail may invite

interference by the Apex Court. Personal liberty is one of the

cherished Constitutional freedoms, and once bail is granted during

the pendency of the trial, it must only be retracted in the face of

grave   circumstances.        The    Hon’ble     Supreme         Court     in   the    said

decision, in paragraphs 27 and 28, has observed as under :



                      “27.    The considerations that weigh with
                      the appellate Court for setting aside the
                      bail order on an application being moved
                      by      the     aggrieved        party      include       any
                      supervening circumstances that may have
                      occurred       after      granting       relief     to    the
                      accused, the conduct of the accused while
                      on bail, any attempt on the part of the
                      accused        to     procrastinate,        resulting       in
                      delaying the trial, any instance of threats
                      being extended to the witnesses while on
                      bail,    any    attempt         on   the    part     of   the
                      accused to tamper with the evidence in any
                      manner. We may add that this list is only
                      illustrative        and   not exhaustive.          However,
                      the court must be cautious that at the
                      stage of granting bail, only a prima facie
                      case needs to be examined and detailed
                      reasons relating to the merits of the case
                      that may cause prejudice to the accused,



                                      Page 11 of 18
R/CR.MA/18928/2026                                                CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026




                     ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to state
                     that      the        bail     order    should      reveal     the
                     factors that have been considered by the
                     Court for granting relief to the accused.


                     28.       In    Jagjeet        Singh    (supra),      a    three-
                     Judges bench of this Court, has observed
                     that the power to grant bail under Section
                     439 Cr.P.C is of wide amplitude and the
                     High Court or a Sessions Court, as the
                     case may be, is bestowed with considerable
                     discretion while deciding an [2024] 5 S.C.R.
                     593       Ajwar          v.     Waseem         and        Another
                     application for bail. But this discretion is
                     not    unfettered.            The     order     passed      must
                     reflect        due     application      of     judicial     mind
                     following well established principles of law.
                     In ordinary course, courts would be slow to
                     interfere with the order where bail has
                     been granted by the courts below. But if it
                     is found that such an order is illegal or
                     perverse or based upon utterly irrelevant
                     material, the appellate Court would be well
                     within its power to set aside and cancel
                     the bail.”




                                          Page 12 of 18
  R/CR.MA/18928/2026                                      CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026




5.21           In the case of Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State

(Delhi Administration), reported in (1978) 1 SCC 118, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had an occasion to observe that the concept of

setting aside the unjustified, illegal or perverse order is totally

different from the concept of canceling the bail on the ground that

the accused has misconducted himself or because of some new

facts are requiring such cancellation. In Paragraph No.16, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court Court has observed as under :



                       "16. Section 439 of the new Code confers
                       special powers on High Court or Court of
                       Session regarding bail. This was also the
                       position under Section 498 CrPC of the old
                       Code. That is to say, even if a Magistrate
                       refuses to grant bail to an accused person,
                       the High Court or the Court of Session
                       may order for grant of bail in appropriate
                       cases. Similarly under Section 439(2) of the
                       new Code, the High Court or the Court of
                       Session may direct any person who has
                       been released on bail to be arrested and
                       committed to custody.           In the old Code,
                       Section     498(2) was        worded   in   somewhat
                       different    language     when    it   said   that     a
                       High Court or Court of Session may cause
                       any person who has been admitted to bail
                       under sub-section (1) to be arrested and



                                     Page 13 of 18
R/CR.MA/18928/2026                                               CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026




                     may      commit        him      to    custody.          In     other
                     words,    under        Section        498(2)       of    the     old
                     Code, a person who had been admitted to
                     bail by the High Court could be committed
                     to    custody      only        by     the         High       Court.
                     Similarly, if a person was admitted to bail
                     by a Court of Session, it was only the
                     Court of Session that could commit him to
                     custody. This restriction upon the power of
                     entertainment            of      an      application             for
                     committing a person, already admitted to
                     bail, to custody, is lifted in the new Code
                     under Section 439(2). Under Section 439(2)
                     of the new Code a High Court may commit
                     a person released on bail under Chapter
                     XXXIII by any Court including the Court
                     of    Session      to         custody,       if     it       thinks
                     appropriate to do so. It must, however, be
                     made clear that a Court of Session cannot
                     cancel    a     bail     which        has      already         been
                     granted       by the      High        Court        unless       new
                     circumstances arise during the progress of
                     the trial after an accused person has been
                     admitted to bail by the High Court. If,
                     however, a Court of Session had admitted
                     an accused person to bail, the State has
                     two   options.      It    may        move         the    Sessions



                                     Page 14 of 18
  R/CR.MA/18928/2026                                        CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026




                       Judge if certain new circumstances have
                       arisen which were not earlier known to the
                       State   and    necessarily,       therefore,         to     that
                       Court. The State may as well approach the
                       High Court being the superior Court under
                       Section 439(2) to commit the accused to
                       custody.    When,        however,        the        State     is
                       aggrieved     by   the    order     of    the        Sessions
                       Judge granting bail and there are no new
                       circumstances that have cropped up except
                       those already existed, it is futile for the
                       State to move the Sessions Judge again
                       and it is competent in law to move the
                       High Court for cancellation of the bail.
                       This position follows from the subordinate
                       position of the Court of Session vis-a-vis
                       the High Court."


5.22           The     aforesaid     observations     made            by     the     Hon'ble

Supreme Court has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Puran Vs. Rambilas & Anr., reported in (2001) 6

SCC 338 as well as in case of Abdul Basit alias Raju & Ors. Vs.
Mohd. Abdul Kadir Cahudhary & Anr., reported in (2014) 10 SCC
754.


5.23           In the case of Ranjit Singh Vs. State of M.P., reported

in (2013) 16 SCC 797, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as



                                     Page 15 of 18
 R/CR.MA/18928/2026                                           CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026




under in Para-19 :



                      "19. It needs no special emphasis to state
                      that    there      is     distinction        between        the
                      parameters         for      grant       of       bail       and
                      cancellation       of     bail.   There         is   also     a
                      distinction between the concept of setting
                      aside    an     unjustified,      illegal      or    perverse
                      order and cancellation of an order of bail
                      on     the    ground       that     the        accused      has
                      misconducted himself or certain supervening
                      circumstances warrant such cancellation. If
                      the order granting bail is a perverse one
                      or passed on irrelevant materials, it can be
                      annulled by the superior court. We have
                      already referred to various paragraphs of
                      the order passed by the High Court. We
                      have already held that the learned trial
                      Judge has undefined misconstrued the order
                      passed by the High Court. However, we
                      may hasten to add that the learned Single
                      Judge        has        taken     note          of      certain
                      supervening        circumstances          to    cancel      the
                      bail, but we are of the opinion that in the
                      obtaining factual matrix the said exercise
                      was not necessary as the grant of bail was
                      absolutely      illegal    and    unjustified        as     the



                                      Page 16 of 18
  R/CR.MA/18928/2026                                              CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026




                       court below had enlarged the accused on
                       bail on the strength of the order passed in
                       Ranjeet Singh v. State of M.P. [Ranjeet
                       Singh v. State of M.P., MCRC No. 701 of
                       2013,         order         dated    1-     2-2013           (MP)]
                       remaining oblivious of the parameters for
                       grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC. It is
                       well       settled     in    law    that    grant       of    bail
                       though        involves        exercise     of    discretionary
                       power of the court, yet the said exercise
                       has to be made in a judicious manner and
                       not as a matter of course."


5.24           At this juncture, the observations made by the Hon'ble

Supreme      Court     in     case    of     Dolat Ram & Ors. Vs. State of
Haryana,       reported      in      1995(1)       SCC     349,    is    required       to    be

recollected.     It    was     observed          therein    that        very    cogent       and

overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing

the cancellation of the bail already granted. The grounds for

cancellation of bail though are broad, but illustrative and not

exhaustive; are interference or attempt to interfere with the due

course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade

the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the

accused in any manner. The Court should satisfy for availability of

the grounds for satisfying of the bail or cancellation of the bail

and one of the possibility is accused being absconded. The bail

once granted, should not in a mechanical manner, without any



                                           Page 17 of 18
             R/CR.MA/18928/2026                                               CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026




        grounds,        or    supervening         circumstance,          which       affects     the     very

        principle of fair trial be cancelled.



        5.25              In the present case, the impugned order passed by the

        learned Trial Court is founded upon sound legal principles and is

        supported by cogent and well-reasoned findings. This Court finds

        no infirmity, perversity, or illegality in the said order so as to

        warrant interference in exercise of its jurisdiction.



        6.                Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,

        this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has

        failed to make out any case warranting interference with the

        impugned order granting bail in favour of the respondent–accused.

        No sufficient grounds, reasons, or supervening circumstances have

        been brought on record so as to justify cancellation of bail or to

        persuade this Court to take a different view than that taken by

        the learned Trial Court.



        7.                Accordingly, the present application is rejected. Rule is

        discharged.




                                                                             (SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
        URIL RANA



Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: RANA URIL K(HC01406), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 20/08/2026 13:57:17




                                                     Page 18 of 18