Holding

The High Court held that no supervening circumstances or misuse of liberty were established and the trial court's grant of anticipatory bail was proper, so the bail was not cancelled.

Summary

The complainant sought cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused in a case involving alleged abetment of suicide linked to a property dispute, invoking Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita. The trial court had earlier granted bail despite the prosecution's reliance on a suicide note and video recording implicating the accused. The High Court examined whether any supervening circumstances, misuse of liberty, or tampering of evidence justified revoking the bail. It found no material showing such misuse or new facts, and held that the trial court had duly considered the evidence and exercised its discretion properly. Consequently, the application to cancel bail was dismissed, leaving the original bail order intact.

Issues considered

The appropriateness of cancelling anticipatory bail on the basis of alleged misuse, tampering or supervening circumstances
Whether the material on record, including a suicide note and video, suffices to justify cancellation of bail
Whether the trial court erred in granting bail without adequate appreciation of the evidence
Distinction between parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of bail

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 439

Subjects

anticipatory bailcancellation of bailsuicideproperty disputeabetment of suicidejudicial discretionSection 439 CrPCSection 483(3) BNSSSection 108 Bhartiya Nyay SanhitaSection 54 Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita

Judgment

R/CR.MA/2855/2026(GJHC240075792026) CAV ORDER DATED:

21/08/2026

Reserved On : 17/08/2026
Pronounced On : 21/08/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
2855 of 2026

With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 2729 of 2026
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 2741 of 2026
==========================================================
PARMAR JAIMIN GAUTAMBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS KIRAN UDASI FOR D H KANTHARIYA(7505) 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 are applications 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

orders in CR.M.A.No.2855 of 2026 dated 24.12.2025 passed
rd
by the learned trial Court i.e. 3 Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application

No.3912 of 2025, in CR.MA.NO.2729 of 2026, by order dated
rd
04.12.2025 passed by the learned trial Court i.e. 3

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Criminal

Misc. Application No.3760 of 2025 and in CR.MA.No.2741 of

2026 by an order dated 24.12.2025 passed by the learned
rd
trial Court i.e. 3 Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Page 1 of 22
R/CR.MA/2855/2026(GJHC240075792026) CAV ORDER DATED:

21/08/2026

Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.3957 of 2025,

whereby the learned trial Court has granted anticipatory bail

to the respondent–original accused in connection with FIR

being C.R. No.11192050250754 of 2025 registered with

Sanand Police Station, District Ahmedabad Rural, for the

offences punishable under Sections 108 and 54 of the

Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita.

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

on behalf of respondent – State.

3.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.

3.1 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

Page 2 of 22
R/CR.MA/2855/2026(GJHC240075792026) CAV ORDER DATED:

21/08/2026

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.

3.2 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 trial Court failed to

assign proper weight to the same and erroneously granted

bail to the respondent–accused.

3.3 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.

Page 3 of 22
R/CR.MA/2855/2026(GJHC240075792026) CAV ORDER DATED:

21/08/2026

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 considered by the learned

Trial Court while exercising its discretion in favour of the

respondent–accused.

4.2. Learned APP has further submitted that having regard

to the nature of the allegations, the seriousness of the

offence, and the material collected during investigation, the

case clearly warranted custodial interrogation of the

respondent–accused.

Page 4 of 22
R/CR.MA/2855/2026(GJHC240075792026) CAV ORDER DATED:

21/08/2026

4.3 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.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.

5.1. Considering the facts of the present case, the role

attributed to the present applicant is that the entire dispute

is with respect to the fact that the deceased had committed

suicide because there were certain disputes with respect to

the joint family property and it is the case of the

complainant that though the deceased was a co-owner in the

property, the accused had sold the said property and caused

Page 5 of 22
R/CR.MA/2855/2026(GJHC240075792026) CAV ORDER DATED:

21/08/2026

lot of mental trauma to the deceased and therefore the

deceased had no other option but to commit suicide. It is

the case of the complainant that during his lifetime the

deceased had made a suicide note and also recorded a video,

the transcript of which clearly names the present accused.

5.2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was a

joint owner of the property in question and had a share

therein. According to the prosecution, the accused did not

give the deceased his lawful share. It is further alleged that

the share of the deceased was also sold by the accused. The

grievance of the deceased was therefore not only about non

payment of his share. He was also aggrieved by the fact

that his share in the property was dealt with and sold.

According to the prosecution, this continued to cause mental

harassment to the deceased.

5.3. The prosecution relies upon a suicide note left by the

deceased. In the said note, the deceased has made

allegations against the accused persons. He has referred to

the harassment allegedly caused to him because his share

in the joint property was not given to him and because the

property was sold.

5.4. The prosecution has also relied upon a video recording.

In the said video, the deceased is stated to have himself

Page 6 of 22
R/CR.MA/2855/2026(GJHC240075792026) CAV ORDER DATED:

21/08/2026

spoken about the harassment caused to him by the accused

persons. Thus, the prosecution case is not based only upon

allegations subsequently made by the complainant or the

relatives of the deceased. The prosecution relies upon the

statements and allegations attributed to the deceased

himself in the suicide note and the video recording.

5.5 At the outset, it is necessary to consider the scope of

the present proceedings. This is not an application seeking

anticipatory bail for the first time. The respondents have

already been granted such protection. Therefore, the Court

has to examine whether there is sufficient ground to cancel

the protection already granted.

5.6 The principles applicable while considering an

application for bail and those applicable while considering

cancellation of bail are not the same. Once bail has been

granted, its cancellation may be justified if the accused

misuses the liberty, threatens or influences witnesses,

tampers with evidence, avoids the investigation or commits

any other act which affects the fair course of the

proceedings. Bail may also be cancelled where the order

granting it is found to be arbitrary, perverse or passed

without considering material circumstances.

5.7. Therefore, two questions arise for consideration. First,

Page 7 of 22
R/CR.MA/2855/2026(GJHC240075792026) CAV ORDER DATED:

21/08/2026

whether the respondents have misused the liberty granted

to them or whether any subsequent circumstance has arisen

which requires cancellation of their anticipatory bail. Second,

whether the order granting anticipatory bail suffers from

such a serious error that its continuation cannot be

permitted. So far as the conduct of the respondents after

grant of anticipatory bail is concerned, no material has been

placed before this Court to show any misuse of liberty.

There is no allegation that the respondents have threatened

or influenced the complainant or any witness. There is also

no allegation of tampering with evidence, absconding,

avoiding investigation or committing any further offence. It

is also not shown that they have otherwise obstructed the

investigation.

5.8. The Court must therefore examine whether the original

order granting anticipatory bail calls for interference because

the material against the respondents was not properly

considered. The material relied upon by the prosecution is

undoubtedly serious. The suicide note is attributed to the

deceased himself. In the note, allegations of harassment

have been made against the accused persons in relation to

his share in the property. The video recording is also

attributed to the deceased and is stated to contain

allegations regarding the same harassment. These

circumstances cannot be ignored. The allegation concerning

the property also requires consideration. According to the

Page 8 of 22
R/CR.MA/2855/2026(GJHC240075792026) CAV ORDER DATED:

21/08/2026

prosecution, the deceased had a share in the joint property.

That share was not given to him and was subsequently sold

by the accused. If this allegation is established during

investigation and trial, it would certainly form part of the

background in which the deceased was allegedly subjected to

mental harassment.

5.9. At the same time, the existence of a property dispute

or the mental distress caused by such dispute does not, by

itself, establish abetment of suicide. The conduct of each

accused has to be examined separately. The Court has to

see whether the acts attributed to the particular accused

disclose instigation, intentional aid or any other conduct

which falls within the scope of abetment. The connection

between such conduct and the suicide also has to be

considered.

5.10. The allegations in the present case, however, cannot

be described as vague or without any factual basis. The

deceased is stated to have referred to the accused in the

suicide note. He is also stated to have spoken about them

in the video recording. Both are connected with the same

grievance regarding his share in the property and the

harassment allegedly caused to him. Whether these

circumstances ultimately prove the offence of abetment is a

matter for the appropriate stage of the criminal proceedings.

Page 9 of 22
R/CR.MA/2855/2026(GJHC240075792026) CAV ORDER DATED:

21/08/2026

5.11. The suicide note, however, cannot be treated as

conclusive proof of the guilt of every person named in it.

The Court has to consider the role of each accused. It has

to examine what part was played by that person, what

conduct is attributed to him or her, when such conduct took

place and whether it had the necessary connection with the

suicide. The mere fact that a person is named in a suicide

note does not, by itself, complete the ingredients of the

offence. At the same time, the fact that the dispute relates

to property also cannot be a reason to discard the

prosecution case at the threshold. A dispute may be civil in

nature, but the manner in which the parties conduct

themselves during such dispute may give rise to criminal

liability. In the present case, the allegation is of continuous

harassment coupled with deprivation and sale of the
deceased’s share. These allegations require investigation on

their own facts.

5.12. This Court, however, is not required to decide whether

the respondents will ultimately be convicted or acquitted. It

is also not required to decide at this stage whether the

suicide note and the video recording are sufficient to prove

the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Those questions have

to be considered at the appropriate stage and on the basis

of the evidence brought on record.

Page 10 of 22
R/CR.MA/2855/2026(GJHC240075792026) CAV ORDER DATED:

21/08/2026

5.13 On examining the material placed before this Court, it

cannot be said that the order granting anticipatory bail was

passed without considering the relevant circumstances or

that the exercise of discretion was manifestly arbitrary or

perverse. The seriousness of the allegations, the relationship

between the parties, the property dispute and the material

collected during investigation are all relevant considerations.

However, they do not by themselves establish that the order

granting anticipatory bail is legally unsustainable.

5.14. Another important aspect is the individual role of the

respondents. They are the brother and other family

members of the deceased. Merely because the deceased has

made allegations against the family members, it cannot be

presumed that every accused had the same role or acted

with the same intention. The prosecution has to collect and

place material showing the specific conduct of each accused.

5.15. The allegation that the deceased’s share in the

property was sold by the accused is a matter which

requires proper investigation. The investigating agency would

be required to examine the title and ownership documents,

the share of the deceased, the manner in which the

property was dealt with, the persons involved in the

transaction, the consideration received and the role of each

Page 11 of 22
R/CR.MA/2855/2026(GJHC240075792026) CAV ORDER DATED:

21/08/2026

accused. These facts may have relevance in determining the

nature of the dispute and the conduct attributed to the

respondents.

5.16. The video recording also requires proper examination.

Its source, date, authenticity, continuity and contents can be

verified during investigation. The same applies to the

suicide note. Its authorship, manner of recovery and

surrounding circumstances can be examined in accordance

with law. At this stage, it would not be proper for this

Court to give a final finding regarding their evidentiary

value.

5.17. The Court is conscious that the deceased is stated to

have himself complained of being deprived of his share and

of being mentally harassed by his own family members. The

fact that such allegations were made before his death gives

them significance. Nevertheless, the seriousness of the

allegations cannot by itself become a ground for cancelling

anticipatory bail. The Court has to apply the principles

governing cancellation of bail.

5.18. The Court must also avoid a detailed appreciation of

evidence at this stage. If this Court were to decide whether

the suicide note conclusively proves instigation, whether the

video establishes harassment, whether the sale of the

Page 12 of 22
R/CR.MA/2855/2026(GJHC240075792026) CAV ORDER DATED:

21/08/2026

deceased’s share was the reason for his suicide and whether

each respondent possessed the required intention, it would

amount to conducting a mini trial. Such an exercise is not

warranted in the present proceedings.

5.19 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.

5.20 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.

5.21 In the present case, the learned advocate for the

Page 13 of 22
R/CR.MA/2855/2026(GJHC240075792026) CAV ORDER DATED:

21/08/2026

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.

5.22 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.

5.23 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

Page 14 of 22
R/CR.MA/2855/2026(GJHC240075792026) CAV ORDER DATED:

21/08/2026

order can be canceled. However, once bail is granted, it

ought not to be canceled in a mechanical manner. An

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

Page 15 of 22
R/CR.MA/2855/2026(GJHC240075792026) CAV ORDER DATED:

21/08/2026

case needs to be examined and detailed
reasons relating to the merits of the case
that may cause prejudice to the accused,
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

Page 16 of 22
R/CR.MA/2855/2026(GJHC240075792026) CAV ORDER DATED:

21/08/2026

the bail.”

5.24 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

Page 17 of 22
R/CR.MA/2855/2026(GJHC240075792026) CAV ORDER DATED:

21/08/2026

High Court or Court of Session may cause
any person who has been admitted to bail
under sub-section (1) to be arrested and
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,

Page 18 of 22
R/CR.MA/2855/2026(GJHC240075792026) CAV ORDER DATED:

21/08/2026

however, a Court of Session had admitted
an accused person to bail, the State has
two options. It may move the Sessions
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."

5.25 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.

Page 19 of 22
R/CR.MA/2855/2026(GJHC240075792026) CAV ORDER DATED:

21/08/2026

5.26 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

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

Page 20 of 22
R/CR.MA/2855/2026(GJHC240075792026) CAV ORDER DATED:

21/08/2026

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
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."

5.27 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

Page 21 of 22
R/CR.MA/2855/2026(GJHC240075792026) CAV ORDER DATED:

21/08/2026

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

grounds, or supervening circumstance, which affects the very

principle of fair trial be cancelled.

5.28 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 21/08/2026 14:27:29

Page 22 of 22