MUMANBHAI POPATBHAI BHARWADversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

   R/CR.RA/1314/2019                                JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
                       1314 of 2019


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
        Approved for Reporting             Yes    No
                                                   √
==========================================================
               MUMANBHAI POPATBHAI BHARWAD
                              Versus
                    STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR R G CHAUDHARY(6428) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR BH SOLANKI(5353) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                            Date : 17/03/2026
                              JUDGMENT

[1.0] By way of present application under Section 397 read with Section
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), the
applicant – original complainant has prayed to cancel the anticipatory bail
granted to respondent No.2 – original accused vide order dated 22.07.2019
passed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in
the proceedings of Criminal Misc. Application No.2196/2019.

[2.0] A complaint being I-CR No.88/2019 came to be Gled by the present
applicant – original complainant against respondent No.2 – original accused
for the oHences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) in connection with which the
respondent No.2 herein – original accused Gled an application being


                                  Page 1 of 6
   R/CR.RA/1314/2019                                JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




Criminal Misc. Application No.2196/2019 seeking anticipatory bail which
came to be allowed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge,
Ahmedabad (Rural) vide order dated 22.07.2019 subject to certain terms
and conditions wherein one of the conditions imposed was that the original
accused will not involve himself into any oHence of any nature. It is the case
of the present applicant that despite aforesaid conditions, the respondent
No.2 – accused has committed three oHences for which FIR has been
registered and therefore, the present applicant – original complainant has
Gled the present application seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail
granted to respondent No.2 – original accused.

[3.0] Heard learned advocate appearing for the respective parties.

[4.0] Learned advocate Mr. R.G. Chaudhary appearing for the applicant has
submitted that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is illegal,
improper and perverse without considering or appreciating the evidence on
record. He has further submitted that accused is a public servant and clerk in
the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad and has fabricated and forged the rent
agreement in collusion with Notary. Though the Investigating OKcer
opposed the bail application, the learned Sessions Judge without assigning
any reasons straightway granted anticipatory bail to the accused. Even,
learned Sessions Judge has imposed the condition on the respondent –
accused that the accused shall not tamper with the prosecution witness and
shall not indulge in any type of similar activity though three oHences are
registered against the accused. He has referred to list of eight cases
registered against the accused and stated that without assigning any reason
qua antecedents of the accused, the learned Sessions Judge has granted
anticipatory bail to the accused. Hence, he has requested to allow the
present application and cancel the bail granted to respondent No.2 –
original accused. He has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court



                                  Page 2 of 6
   R/CR.RA/1314/2019                                JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




in the case of Kanwar Singh Meena vs. State of Rajasthan [(2012)12 SCC
180]; Neeru Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 2015 SC 3703];
Prakash Kadam and Etc. vs. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta [(2011)6 SCC
189]; Deepak Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2022)8 SCC 559] as well
as decision of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Desai Jigishbhai
@ Rajubhai Nagjibhai [2016 JX (Guj) 104] and Yashwantkumar Hiralal
Patel vs. Hiteshkumar Chunnalal Agrawal [2017 JX (Guj) 949].

[5.0] Learned advocate Mr. B.H. Solanki appearing for respondent No.2 –
original accused has opposed the present application and submitted that
dispute arose between respondent No.2 and his wife due to the present
applicant. In this regard, various proceedings came to be Gled. Prior to
registration of the complaint in present case, one complaint in nature of
application was Gled before the Sabarmati Police Station on 25.09.2018 and
thereafter, another FIR being I-CR No.55/2019 came to be Gled for the
oHence under Section 498-A and allied oHences with Sabarmati Police
Station and another FIR being I-CR No.145/2019 came to be Gled Vastrapur
Police Station for the oHence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468,
471, 506(1) and 114 of the IPC. He has further submitted that the
respondent No.2 has Gled a cross-complaint against the present applicant
with Vastrapur Police Station. He has further submitted that another
complaint under Section 145 of the CrPC is Gled by the wife of the
respondent – accused and subsequently proceedings are Gled which are not
criminal oHence. He has further argued that maintenance proceedings and
search warrant proceedings are not terms as any oHence and therefore, the
learned Sessions Judge has assigned proper reasons while granting
anticipatory bail to the respondent No.2 and no case is made out for
cancellation of bail.

[6.0] At the outset, it is worth to mention that parameters for grant of bail



                                  Page 3 of 6
   R/CR.RA/1314/2019                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




and cancellation of bail both are diHerent. Learned Sessions Judge while
granting anticipatory bail recorded the reasons and while deciding bail
application, merits of the case are not required to be discussed. Learned
Sessions Judge has properly used the discretion and the reasons assigned
by the learned Sessions Judge does not call for any interference as applicant
failed to show that the said reasons are perverse and contrary. Herein, the
complaint being I-CR No.88/2019 came to be Gled by the present applicant –
original complainant against respondent No.2 – original accused for the
oHences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the
IPC in connection with which the respondent No.2 is granted anticipatory
bail on 22.07.2019 keeping in mind the ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and
Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 and learned Sessions Judge has assigned
proper reasons and has exercised the jurisdiction properly. Learned
advocate for the applicant failed to show any supervening circumstances or
breach of any condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge while
granting the bail to the accused and that the respondent No.2 has taken
undue advantage or tampered with the evidence and committed breach of
any condition. In absence of any such supervening, question does not arise
to cancel the bail mechanically as cancellation of bail adversely aHects the
liberty of a person considering his fundamental right to life and liberty and
therefore, this Court is not inclined to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to
the respondent No.2 – original accused. Whatever antecedents of
respondent No.2 – accused have been shown by the applicant are either
prior to registration of oHence of present case or personal in nature like
maintenance proceedings under Section 498-A of the IPC and issuance of
search warrant which is Gled by the wife of the accused and in connection of
one of the oHences, cross-complaint is also and hence, merely registration
of oHence does not mean that the respondent No.2 has indulged in similar
type of illegal activities and any oHence is registered after being granted


                                   Page 4 of 6
   R/CR.RA/1314/2019                                JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




anticipatory bail.

[6.1] It goes without saying that the criteria or parameters for granting bail
to an accused and canceling bail are signiGcantly diHerent and must be
considered separately by the Court. It is pertinent to note that the Court is
not required to determine whether the evidence favors the accused or the
prosecution at this stage. Instead, the Court must consider whether a prima
facie case exists against the accused, the material collected against them,
the severity of the punishment, and whether a charge-sheet has been Gled.
The Court must assess whether further detention of the accused is
necessary or if his presence is required during the investigation. Considering
the aforementioned factors, the Court must also ensure the presence of the
accused during the trial after granting bail.

[7.0] This Court deems it proper to refer to the judgment in the case of
Ajwar v. Waseem [2024 INSC 438], wherein the Apex Court 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
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.


[8.0] In the present case, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is
based on sound legal principles and reasoning. Therefore, no case is made
out to interfere with the order of the learned Sessions Judge. Even no
allegations have been made by the original complainant (applicant) that the



                                   Page 5 of 6
   R/CR.RA/1314/2019                                                          JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




accused has misused his liberty. Merely alleging that the accused is a public
servant and apprehending that he may tamper with the evidence is not
suKcient grounds to cancel the bail, especially since the learned Sessions
Court has imposed suitable conditions while granting bail to the accused.
Any detailed appreciation of evidence, which may prejudice the accused,
should be avoided while deciding a bail application.


[9.0] So far as authorities relied on by the learned advocate for the
applicant is concerned, same are distinguishable with the facts of the
present case and are not applicable to the case on hand.


[10.0]             In view of the above, the present application stands dismissed.



                                                                                          Sd/-
                                                                        (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 18/03/2026 11:23:33




                                                   Page 6 of 6