Holding

Orders granting, rejecting or cancelling bail are interlocutory and cannot be challenged by revision, so the revision applications are dismissed.

Summary

The State alleged that several officials and contractors colluded to submit false bills under the MGNREGA scheme, causing a loss of approximately Rs 7.30 crore and invoking offences under the IPC such as criminal breach of trust and forgery. The accused were initially granted bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which was later cancelled by the Sessions Judge. The accused filed multiple revision applications under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the bail cancellation. The High Court examined whether the bail cancellation order is an interlocutory order barred from revision and whether the Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to set aside the magistrate's bail order. Relying on precedents that bail orders are interlocutory and not subject to revision, the Court held the applications were not maintainable and dismissed them, extending the surrender date for the accused.

Issues considered

The bail cancellation order is an interlocutory order barred from revision under Section 438/442 BNSS and Section 397 CrPC.
Whether the Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to cancel the bail granted by the magistrate.
Whether there were supervening circumstances justifying bail cancellation.
Maintainability of the revision applications filed by the accused.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 438, s. 442
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 397, s. 437(1)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 114, s. 120B, s. 406, s. 409, s. 465, s. 467, s. 468, s. 471

Subjects

bailrevisioninterlocutory orderMGNREGA fraudcriminal breach of trustIndian Penal CodeBNSSSection 438Section 442High Court jurisdiction

Judgment

R/CR.RA/2495/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST
ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 2495 of
2025
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 2549 of 2025
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 2552 of 2025
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 2554 of 2025
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 2519 of 2025
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 2541 of 2025
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 2481 of 2025
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 2482 of 2025
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 2483 of 2025

=================================================
RAJESHBHAI MAHADEVBHAI TAYLOR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=================================================
Appearance:
MR ADITYA A ASTHAVADI(12915) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SI NANAVATI, SR ADVOCATE with MR MAULIN G.
PANDYA, for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK DAVE, PP with MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
=================================================

Page 1 of 18
R/CR.RA/2495/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 27/01/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor waives service for the respondent – State.

2. By these revision applications, filed under Section 438 r/w.
Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(BNSS), the applicants have challenged the orders, as detailed
below, passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch,
whereby, bail granted to the present applicants came to be cancelled:

Sr. CR.RA No. Impugned order Setting aside the CC No.
& passed in Cr.MA order passed in
Preferred by (accused) No. Cr.MA No. & Date
& date and by
1. 2482/2025 819/2025 1481/2025 7067/2025
Hirabhai Arjanbhai Jotva 12.12.2025 26.09.2025
CJM, Bharuch
2. 2481/2025 821/2025 1522/2025
1) Jodhabhai Naranbhai 12.12.2025 13.10.2025
Sabhad CJM, Bharuch
2) Piyush Ratilal Nukani
3. 2541/2025 825/2025 1508/2025 7067/2025
Maheshkumar Ishwarkumar 16/12/2025 08.10.2025
Parmar CJM, Bharuch
4. 2483/2025 820/2025 1516/2025 7067/2025
Digvijay Hirabhai Jotwa 12.12.2025 08.10.2025
CJM, Bharuch
5. 2519/2025 823/2025 1495/2025 7067/2025
Mahammad Sahal Ismail Patel 15.12.2025 08.10.2025
(Patel Mohamedsahal Ismail) CJM, Bharuch
6. 2549/2025 824/2025 1523/2025
Sarman Hardas Solanki 17.12.2025 13.10.2025
CJM, Bharuch

Page 2 of 18
R/CR.RA/2495/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026

Sr. CR.RA No. Impugned order Setting aside the CC No.
& passed in Cr.MA order passed in
Preferred by (accused) No. Cr.MA No. & Date
& date and by
7. 2552/2025 826/2025 1507/2025 7067/2025
Harendrasinh Balwantsinh 17.12.2025 08.10.2025
Parmar CJM, Bharuch
8. 2554/2025 827/2025 1506/2025 7067/2025
Shoaib Mohammad Yusuf 17.12.2025 08.10.2025
Dola CJM, Bharuch
9. 2495/2025 822/2025 1526/2025 7067/2025
Rajeshbhai Mahadevbhai 12.12.2025 10.10.2025
Taylor CJM, Bharuch

3. Outlined facts of the prosecution case are that Murlidhar
Enterprise and Jalaram Enterprise were allotted work relating the
construction of road in different 11 villages, which was to be carried
out as per the SOP provided and specifications therefor by using
stipulated material, under MGNREGA Scheme of the Government.
However, allegedly with mala fide intention, the same was not
complied and the work done was against the said SOP as well as
other Government stipulations, generating false bills for the work so
allotted and done, although knowing the said fact, by using the same
as legitimate bills and thereby, Murlidhar Enterprise got
Rs.13,05,676.51/- whereas, Jalaram Enterprise got Rs.6,58,898.89/-,
totalling to Rs.19,64,575.40/- in excess from the State Government.
Thereby, in connivance with each other, by hatching conspiracy, in
defiance of the objects and provisions of the MGNREGA Scheme of
the Government, thereby, snatching employment of poor village
people, for the works relating to approx 56 villages of Jambusar,
Amod, and Hasot Talukas of Bharuch District, the applicant –
accused caused monetary loss to the Government approximately

Page 3 of 18
R/CR.RA/2495/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026

Rs.7,30,00,000/- and committed criminal breach of trust and forgery,
for which offence came to be registered vide FIR No.
11199010250535 of 2025 with City A-Division Police Station,
Bharuch, District: Bharuch for the offence punishable under Sections
409, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC).

4. Pursuant to the FIR filed, the applicants herein filed bail
applications before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch,
which came to be allowed, as per details given in the above table.
Grieved State, applied for cancellation of bail thus granted to the
applicants herein before the learned Sessions Court at Bharuch. The
said applications, as aforesaid, came to be allowed and bail granted
to the applicants herein came to be cancelled. Against such
cancellation of bail granted to the applicants herein, they have
moved this Court by these revision applications.

5. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the
learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the respondent – State.

6. At the outset, the learned advocates for the respective
applicants have submitted that the offences for which, the applicants
have been charged are the ones for which the punishment prescribed
is either less than seven years or the one where there is no minimum

Page 4 of 18
R/CR.RA/2495/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026

punishment is prescribed for. Accordingly, it is submitted that the
learned Sessions Judge has committed a grave error cancelling the
bail already granted to the applicants herein.

6.1 It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants
herein that investigation qua applicants is over and Charge-sheet is
the case has already been filed and hence, custodial interrogation is
not required. Further, there is no possibility of tampering and/or
hampering with the evidence.

6.2 It is further submitted that there is a difference between setting
aside the bail order and cancellation of bail. It is submitted that the
learned Sessions Judge has no power to set aside the order passed by
the learned Magistrate and that, prosecution ought to have filed
appeal against the order granting bail, which is not the case here.

6.3 Relying on a decision of the Apex Court in Neeru Yadav v.
State of U.P., reported in (2014) 16 SCC 508, it is submitted by the
learned advocate for the applicants as observed therein, that, “if in a
case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into
consideration while dealing with the application for bail and have
not been taken note of bail or it is founded on irrelevant
considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the
order of such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to a different
category and is in a separate realm. While dealing with a case of

Page 5 of 18
R/CR.RA/2495/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026

second nature, the Court does not dwell upon the violation of
conditions by the accused or the supervening circumstances that
have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the
justifiability and the soundness of the order passed by the Court”.

6.4 Relying on a decision in Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of
Delhi and Anr., reported in 2025 INSC 974, it is submitted that as
observed by the Apex Court therein, there are several principles to
be followed while entertaining an appeal against an order granting
bail and an application for cancellation of bail.

6.5 The learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that bail
once granted can be cancelled only considering whether any
supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to
the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying concession of bail
and/or, there is apprehension of misuse of liberty and/or tampering
or hampering with evidence and/or threat/danger to the victim of
crime. It is submitted that the in the case on hand nothing such sort
has been pointed out by the prosecution.

6.6 Moreover, it is submitted that looking to the Charge-sheet
papers, no ingredients of the offences alleged against the present
applicants have been satisfied.

6.7 It is vehemently submitted that the officer who filed the

Page 6 of 18
R/CR.RA/2495/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026

complaint is the same officer responsible for monitoring the 60:40
ratio (Material : Labour) and in case of any violation, the office was
having powers to withheld or cancel the allocation of grant.
However, at relevant point of time, no question was raised.

6.8 Moreover, it is submitted that in such a Government Scheme,
there are multiple layers of scrutiny at different administrative levels
and hence, it is highly improbable and practical too, to conspire with
each and every official involved in execution of public work. It is
submitted that the prosecution case rests on presumption and
assumption, which is against the criminal justice system, where
standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt.

6.9 It is submitted that so far as applicants in Criminal Revision
Application Nos. 2495, 2554 and 2552 of 2025 are concerned, they
were merely performing their duties as Assistant in Hasot Taluka
and was making entries only as instructed and that they are the
victims with co-accused Hirabhai Jotva and Digvijay Jotva, who are
victims of political vendetta being of opposite faction. So far as the
applicants in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 2541 and 2519 of
2025 are concerned, they were the Taluka Development Officers
(TDO). It is submitted that no overt act has been committed by them
in commission of crime.

6.10 Further, it is submitted that so far as the applicants in Criminal

Page 7 of 18
R/CR.RA/2495/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026

Revision Application Nos. 2482 and 2483 of 2025 are concerned, it
is stated that merely on the basis of bank transactions between the
applicants and the contractors, it is alleged that the applicants are the
main conspirators who had been managing the firms and all contract
works by registering the firms in the names of the different persons.
It is submitted that the applicants therein and the applicants of
Criminal Revision Application No. 2481 of 2025, who are the
Proprietors of the Murlidhar Enterprise and the Jalaram Enterprise,
respectively, are residents of nearby village and have cordial
business relations since long and due to the relations and the same
line of work, they extend financial support in business of each other,
which is routine and the transactions are also recorded in their books
of account and accordingly, they have no role to play in the alleged
offence.

6.11 It is submitted that the offence alleged against the present
applicants is Magistrate triable only. The applicants have roots in
the family and they are not likely to flee from justice and
accordingly, it is urged that these revision applications may be
allowed by setting aside the orders impugned herein and confirming
the orders of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch,
granting bail to the applicants.

6.12 In support of their submissions, the learned advocates
appearing for the applicants herein, have further relied on the

Page 8 of 18
R/CR.RA/2495/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026

following decisions:

i) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Anr., reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51

ii) P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement,
reported in (2020) 13 SCC 791;

iii) Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka and Anr.,
reported in (2017) 5 SCC 406;

iv) State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi,
reported in (1978) 2 SCC 411;

v) Dolat Ram and Others v. State of Haryana, reported in
(1995) 1 SCC 349;

vi) Puran v. Rambilas and Anr., with Shekhar and Anr., v.
State of Maharashtra and Anr., reported in (2001) 6 SCC
338;

vii) Abhimanue Etc. Etc. v. State of Kerala with Vishnu
Etc. v. State of Keral and Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 2037;

viii) Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.,
reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559;

ix) Sanjay Chandra and Ors. v. Central Bureau of
Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40;

x) Bhagirathsinh S/o. Mahipat Singh Judeja v. State of
Gujarat, reported in (1984) 1 SCC 284;

xi) Shahnavaz Rafikbhai Katariya v. Tejmal @ Raghu
Hitendrasinh Desai, reported in 2025 (0) AIJEL-HC 252100;

Page 9 of 18
R/CR.RA/2495/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026

xii) Vineet Jain v. Union of India, reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 2331;

xiii) Victim ‘X’ v. State of Bihar and Anr., rendered by the
Apex Court in Criminal appeal of 2025, arising out of SLP
(Crl.) No (s). 4335 of 2024;

xiv) Narender Kumar v. Directorate General of GST
Intelligence, rendered by the Delhi High Court in Bail
Application No. 3065/2025 on 08.10.2025;

7. Countering the arguments made on behalf of the applicants –
original accused, the learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while, supporting the
impugned judgment and orders passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, submitted that no perversity and/or palpable error or illegality
has been committed by the learned Sessions Judge while passing the
impugned judgment and orders cancelling the bail granted to the
present applicants.

7.1 At the outset, the learned Public Prosecutor, inviting attention
of the Court to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amit
Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Anr., reported in (2012) 9 SCC
460, submitted that scope in revisional jurisdiction is very limited
one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner and it is only with a
view to correct the manifest error, such jurisdiction should be
invoked. Revisional Jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions
under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with
the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence,

Page 10 of 18
R/CR.RA/2495/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026

material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised
arbitrarily or perversely.

7.2 Taking this Court through the FIR, the learned Public
Prosecutor for the State submitted it is a case of huge loss and
misappropriation of Government money running into crores of
rupees, and likely to spread over to many Districts. It is submitted
that in the instant case, out of 430 parts of 56 villages of Amod,
Hasot, and Jambusar Talukas, report qua only 98 parts has been
availed so far wherein, misappropriation of Rs.2,30,22,744.01/- is
found, whereas, report qua the rest 332 parts (works) still awaited
wherein, there is a possibility of high stake. It is submitted that
investigation is still going on and there are chances of further
revelation. He further submits that the involvement of the applicant
in that also, cannot be ruled out. In the circumstances, it is
submitted that if the applicants are set at large, there are high
chances of tampering and hampering with the evidence and the
witnesses.

7.3 The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that if the
order passed by the learned Magistrate is perused, the same is much
less a non-speaking and routinely passed order. Further, the
offences for which the applicants includes the offence for which,
even life imprisonment is prescribed for. In the circumstances, there
is jurisdictional error also committed by the learned Magistrate and

Page 11 of 18
R/CR.RA/2495/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026

thus, it is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly
cancelled the bail granted to the present applicants.

7.4 The learned Public Prosecutor, drawing attention of the Court
to the Charge-sheet papers submitted that statements of several
witnesses have been recorded. He submitted that Technical Analysis
of the work done (construction of roads) is undertaken, report of
which is a part of the Charge-sheet papers, wherein, there found to
be huge anomaly in the specifications and thus, clear overt act on the
part of the applicants in the crime in question has been establishment
and accordingly, it is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has
rightly come to such a conclusion.

7.5 The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the applicants are
influential persons and when the investigation is still going on and it
is at a crucial stage, consideration of these applications may highly
jeopardize the case of the prosecution.

7.6 Making above submissions, it is submitted that this Court may
not entertain these applications and it is urged to be rejected.

8. Heard, the learned counsel for the respective parties and gone
through the material placed on record including the Charge-sheet
papers and the decisions relied on by both the sides.

Page 12 of 18
R/CR.RA/2495/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026

8.1 At the outset, it is apt to be noted here that law with regard to
scope of revision is no more res integra. In catena of decisions the
same is reiterated and the core principles, which are to be kept in
mind in dealing with a revision application, are observed in
celebrated decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor
(supra), in which it is held as under:

“The object of the provisions of revision is to set right a patent
defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a
well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the Court
to scrutinize the orders which upon the face of them bear a
token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance
with law. Revisional Jurisdiction can be invoked where the
decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no
compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is
based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial
discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.”

9. Be that as it may. It is no more res integra that the order
granting bail is an interlocutory order against which, revision under
Section 438 BNSS (analogues to Section 397 CrPC) cannot lie. The
Apex Court, in the case of Amar Nath and Others v. State of
Haryana and Another, (1977) 4 SCC 137, has clearly held in para 6
as under:

“6. Let us now proceed to interpret the provisions of s. 397
against the historical background of these facts. Sub- section
(2) of s. 397 of the 1973 Code may be extracted thus:

"The powers of revision conferred by Sub- section (1) shall not

Page 13 of 18
R/CR.RA/2495/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026

be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed; in
any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding."

The main question which falls for determination in this appeal
is as to, the what is the connotation of the term "interlocutory
order" as appearing in sub-s. (2) of s. 397 which bars any
revision of such an order by the High Court. The term
"interlocutory order" is a term of well-known legal
significance and does not present any serious diffident. It has
been used in various statutes including the Code of Civil
Procedure, Letters Patent of the High Courts and other like
statutes. In Webster's New World Dictionary "interlocutory"
has been defined as an order other than final decision.
Decided cases have laid down that interlocutory orders to be
appealable must be those which decide 'the rights and
liabilities of the parties concerning a particular aspect. It
seems to, us that the term "interlocutory order" in s. 397(2) of
the 1973 Code has beenused in a restricted sense and not in
any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a
purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or
touch the important rights, or the liabilities of the parties. Any
order which substantially affects the, right of the accused, or
decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an
interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court
against that order, because that would be against the very
object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular
provision in s. 397 of the, 1973 Code. Thus, for instance,
orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing
orders for bail, calling for reports and such other steps in aid
of the pending proceeding, may no doubt amount to
interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie
under s. 397 (2) of the 1973 Code. But orders which are
matters of moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of
the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to
be interlocutory order so as to be. outside the purview of the
revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.”
(emphasis supplied)

Page 14 of 18
R/CR.RA/2495/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026

9.1 Further, the Apex Court in the case of Madhu Limaye v. State
of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47, has held that revision against an
interlocutory order cannot lie.

9.2 In the case of Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon and Ors. Vs.
State of Gujarat, reported in 1988 (2) SCC 271, the Apex Court has
observed (in para 24) that, “…..it cannot be doubted that the grant
or refusal of a bail application is essentially an interlocutory order .
There is no finality to such an order for an application for bail can
always be renewed from time to time…..”.
(emphasis supplied)

9.3 The coordinate Bench of this Court also, in a reportable
decision in the case of Aarif Mohammadsharif Pipadwala v. State
of Gujarat and Anr., rendered in Special Criminal Application No.
2624 of 2018 dated 21.06.2018, while referring to the observations
made in the decision in Ambarish Rangshahi Patnigere v. State of
Maharashtra, reported in 2011 Cri.L.J. 515, rendered by the
Bombay High Court, in para 36 thereof, wherein there is reference of
decision in the case of Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi & Anr.
JT, 2001 (4) SCC 116, has referred observations thereof, relevant of
which, is extracted hereunder:

“...He relied upon certain authorities in this respect including
Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi & Anr. JT 2001 (4) SCC
116. In that case, offence was under Section 302 which is
punishable with death sentence or life imprisonment and is

Page 15 of 18
R/CR.RA/2495/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026

exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. The offence under
Section 409 is punishable with imprisonment for life or
imprisonment for 10 years and fine. Similarly, the office under
Section 467 is also punishable with imprisonment for life or
imprisonment for 10 years and fine. Even though the maximum
sentence which may be awarded is life imprisonment, as per
Part I of Schedule annexed to Cr.P.C., both these offences are
triable by a Magistrate of First Class. It appears that there are
several offences including under sec.326 in the Indian Penal
Code wherein sentence, which may be awarded, is
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for lesser terms and
such offences are triable by Magistrate of the First Class. If
the Magistrate is empowered to try the case and pass judgment
and order of conviction or acquittal, it is difficult to
understand why he cannot pass order granting bail, which is
interlocutory in nature, in such cases. In fact, the restriction
under Sec. 437(1) Cr. P.C. is in respect of those offences
which are punishable with alternative sentence of death or life
imprisonment….”.
(emphasis supplied)

9.4 Another coordinate Bench of this Court, in the decision in
Vithalbhai Talsibhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat and Anr., reported
in 2000 SCC OnLine Guj. 302, in para 7 thereof, referred the
decision of this Court in the case of Makwana Sambhubhai
Chethabhai v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1992 (2) GLR 1291,
wherein, this Court has held that, “granting or refusing bail being an
interlocutory order, revision would not lie”.

9.5 Further, in the decision rendered by the Bombay High Court in
the case of Mohan @ Mannu Basantani v. State of Maharashtra,

Page 16 of 18
R/CR.RA/2495/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026

reported in 1989 MAH.L.R. 1556, it is observed that, “the order
granting or refusing bail is an interlocutory order and in view of
Sub-section 2 of Section 397, the revisional powers could not be
exercised in respect of such interlocutory order”.

9.6 Thus, from the above, it is manifestly clear that the orders
granting, rejecting and cancelling the bail are interlocutory orders
against which, revision cannot lie as there is no finality to such
orders for an application for bail can always be renewed from time
to time.

10. In the aforesaid view of the matter, without going into the
merits of the case, only on the ground of maintainability, these
applications are rejected. Rule is discharged.

11. It goes without saying that the applicants may resort to the
remedy available to them under the law.

12. By an order dated 08.01.2026 passed by this Court, time to
surrender by the applicants – accused was extended upto 29.01.2026.
Accordingly, the applicants – accused are directed to surrender to
custody on 29.01.2026, failing which, the trial Court concerned is at
liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

Page 17 of 18
R/CR.RA/2495/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026

12.1 Registry to communicate this order to the trial Court
concerned, forthwith.

[ P. M. Raval, J. ]

Further Order:

After this order is passed, Mr. S. I. Nanavati, learned senior
counsel for the respective applicants, requested that time to
surrender may be extended suitably so as to enable the applicants to
resort to the appropriate legal remedies available to them under the
law as the matters are rejected only on the count of maintainability
and not on merits.

The request is found to be genuine and hence, acceded to.

Accordingly, time to surrender by the applicants – accused (as
detailed in para 2 of this order) in these revision applications, is
extended till 16.02.2026.

Direct service is permitted.

Registry to place a copy of this order in each petition.

[ P. M. Raval, J. ]
hiren/36-39,65,66,75-77

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: HIREN VIRENDRABHAI MER(HC00351), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 27/01/2026 14:59:56

Page 18 of 18