SAMATBHAI RAMABHAI BHARVADversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The revision application is dismissed; the anticipatory bail order remains in force.
Summary
The applicant, Smt. Samatbai Ramabhai Bharvad, filed a criminal revision seeking to quash an anticipatory bail order dated 12 October 2013 granted to respondents No.2 and No.3. The applicant failed to appear before the High Court despite multiple notices, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the matter. The Court examined the record and noted that the respondents have been on anticipatory bail for thirteen years without any breach of the conditions imposed. Citing Taj Mohammad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and the principles laid down in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, the Court found no patent error, perversity, or miscarriage of justice in the lower court's order. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed and the anticipatory bail order left undisturbed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can set aside the anticipatory bail order granted by the Additional Sessions Judge.
- Whether there exists any patent error, perversity, or miscarriage of justice justifying interference under revisional jurisdiction.
- Whether the applicant's non‑appearance and the lapse of thirteen years affect the exercise of revisional powers.
Subjects
Judgment
R/CR.RA/702/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 702 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
SAMATBHAI RAMABHAI BHARVAD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS BELA A PRAJAPATI(1946) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MONALI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 08/04/2026
JUDGMENT
[1.0] When the matter is called out today, none appeared for the
applicant. Even on the earlier dates =xed in the matter, none had
remained present on behalf of the applicant. Therefore, it clearly
appears that the applicant is not interested in prosecuting the present
matter. Hence, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Taj Mohammad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, decided on
11.08.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.2421 of 2023, this Court has
considered the averments made in the application as well as the
material placed on record and has proceeded to decide the matter in
absence of the applicant based on available material on record.
[2.0] By way of the present application, the applicant has requested
this Court to quash and set aside the order dated 12.10.2013 recorded
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Misc. Application
Page 1 of 2
R/CR.RA/702/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
No.723/2013 granting anticipatory bail to the respondent Nos.2 and 3
herein.
[3.0] Having heard the learned APP appearing for the respondent –
State of Gujarat and perusing the record as well as averments made in
the application, this Court is not inclined to accede to the relief sought
for in the present application more particularly in view of the fact that
the applicant has sought relief of cancelling the anticipatory bail
granted to respondent Nos.2 and 3 by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge vide order dated 12.10.2013 and since last 13 years, respondent
Nos.2 and 3 are on anticipatory bail and no breach of any of the
conditions imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while
granting anticipatory bail is reported till date, due to eGux of time,
this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order granting
anticipatory bail to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge.
[4.0] In light of above it appears that the applicant has failed to point
out any patent error or perversity in the order passed by the Court
below or any miscarriage of justice and therefore no case is made out
to interference with the impugned order and the application fails to
satisfy the test for exercising revisional jurisdiction in light of the
scope of revision laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander [(2012)9 SCC 460].
[5.0] Accordingly, the present revision application stands dismissed.
Rule is hereby discharged.
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 08/04/2026 18:08:56
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.