Holding

A bail order may be cancelled only if it is unreasoned or perverse; the trial court’s bail grant was reasoned and therefore the cancellation was unlawful.

Summary

The petitioner, Shoiab Mohammad Yusuf Dola, was arrested in July 2025 for alleged offences under the IPC relating to a large-scale MGNREGA fraud. After several denied bail applications, the Chief Judicial Magistrate granted regular bail on 8 October 2025 following the filing of a charge‑sheet. The prosecution then invoked Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the Sessions Court cancelled the bail on 17 December 2025. The petitioner filed a Special Criminal Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking quash of that cancellation. The High Court examined whether a bail order, once granted, can be mechanically revoked and held that cancellation is permissible only if the original order is unreasoned or perverse. Finding that the trial court had duly considered the seriousness of the offence, the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration, and the lack of any change in circumstances beyond the filing of the charge‑sheet, the Court concluded that the Sessions Court erred. Consequently, the High Court quashed and set aside the cancellation order, restoring the bail granted to the petitioner.

Issues considered

Whether a bail order granted by a trial court can be cancelled mechanically by a higher court under Section 483(3) of the BNSS.
Whether the trial court’s bail order was unreasoned or perverse, justifying its revocation.
Whether the filing of a charge‑sheet constitutes a material change in circumstances warranting bail cancellation.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitas. 483(3), s. 528
Constitution of Indias. Article 226, s. Article 227
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 114, s. 120B, s. 406, s. 409, s. 465, s. 467, s. 468, s. 471

Subjects

bailquash of orderSection 483BNSSeconomic offencehigh courtrevision petitionperverse orderArticle 226Article 227

Judgment

R/SCR.A/2140/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 2140 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: sd/-

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY

==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
SHOIAB MOHAMMAD YUSUF DOLA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ADITYA A ASTHAVADI(12915) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK DAVE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR with MR.HIMANSHU PATEL,
APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY

Date : 10/03/2026

JUDGMENT

1. By filing the present petition under Article 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India read with section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the petitioner has
prayed for the following reliefs:-

A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow
this application.
B) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set
aside the impugned order dated 17.12.2025 passed

Page 1 of 12
R/SCR.A/2140/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026

by the learned District and Sessions Court, Bharuch
in CRMA No.827 of 2025 cancelling the regular bail
granted vide order dated 08.10.2025 passed in CRMA
No.1506 of 2025 passed by the ld.JMFC granting
regular bail to the applicant vide order dated
08.10.2025 in connection with offence registered at
Bharuch City ‘A’ Division Police Station, District –
Bharuch vide C.R.No.11199010250535 of 2025 for
offence punishable under sections 409, 406, 465,
467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
C) Pending hearing and till final disposal of this petition
be pleased to stay the further operation and
execution of the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by
learned District and Sessions Judge, Bharuch in
CRMA No.827 of 2025.
D) An ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of Prayer (C)
above may kindly be granted.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to filing of the
present petition are such that the FIR being C.R.No.
11199010250535 of 2025 came to be registered with
Bharuch City ‘A’ Division Police Station, District – Bharuch
on 30th May, 2025 for the offence punishable under
Sections 409, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 114 of
the IPC. After lodgement of the F.I.R., the petitioner came
to be arrested in connection with the same on 23 rd July,
2025. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application
seeking regular bail before the learned trial Court which

Page 2 of 12
R/SCR.A/2140/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026

was dismissed by the learned trial court. The petitioner
then approached the learned Sessions Court seeking
regular bail, which was also dismissed by the learned
Sessions Court. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this
Court seeking regular bail and the said application came
to be withdrawn since this Court was not inclined to use
discretion in favour of the petitioner during the pendency
of the investigation. The investigating agency concluded
the investigation and submitted a Charge-sheet against the
petitioner and the other co-accused. After the filing of the
Charge-sheet, the petitioner again approached the learned
trial Court seeking regular bail by filing Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No.1506 of 2025 and the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch vide order
dated 08.10.2025 allowed the said application and the
petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail.

2.1 Being aggrieved by the said order, the prosecution
approached the learned Sessions Court, Bharuch by filing
Criminal Misc. Application No.827 of 2025 under Section
483(3) of the BNSS. The learned Sessions Court vide order
dated 17.12.2025 allowed the said application filed by the
prosecution and cancelled the bail granted to the
petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, initially the
petitioner approached this Court by filing Criminal
Revision Application. However, the Coordinate Bench of
this Court held that the order rejecting and cancelling the
bail is an interlocutory order against which the revision
application is not maintainable and thus, rejected the
application filed by the petitioner and the other co-

Page 3 of 12
R/SCR.A/2140/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026

accused. In the interregnum, the Coordinate Bench has
extended the period for the petitioner and the other co-
accused to surrender. After the rejection of revision
application, the petitioner has filed present petition
challenging the order of learned Sessions Court whereby
the bail granted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted
that after filing of the Charge-sheet by the Investigating
Agency, the petitioner had approached the learned trial
Court seeking regular bail. The learned trial Court after
considering the merits of the matter including seriousness
of the offence and the role played by the petitioner in
offence along with a fact that the investigation was over
and the trial was not likely to conclude in near future,
ordered to enlarge the petitioner on bail. At the time of
hearing of bail application filed by the petitioner before the
learned trial Court, ample opportunities of hearing was
given to the prosecution and the learned Public Prosecutor
was also heard and thereafter, the learned trial Court by
exercising the discretion vested in it had allowed the
application filed by the petitioner and had ordered the
petitioner to be released on bail. Against the said order,
the prosecution has preferred an application before the
learned Sessions Court under Section 483 (3) of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The said application
came to be allowed by the learned Sessions Court and the
bail granted to the petitioner came to be cancelled. He
submitted that as per settled legal position, the bail once
granted to the accused cannot be cancelled except when

Page 4 of 12
R/SCR.A/2140/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026

the learned trial Court has taken irrelevant aspects into
consideration for the grant of bail. The bail once granted to
the accused cannot be cancelled mechanically. He
submitted that the question of revocation of the bail
granted to the accused would arise only if the order pass
by the concerned Court granting the bail is unreasoned
order or is a perverse order. In the present case, the
learned trial Court has given cogent reason for grant of bail
to the petitioner and has also taken all the relevant aspects
including the seriousness of offence alleged against the
petitioner, role played by the petitioner in commission of
offence and the period of incarceration undergone by the
petitioner into consideration. Therefore, the order passed
by the learned trial Court granting bail to the petitioner in
no terms can be said to be an unreasoned order or a
perverse order. Therefore, the learned Sessions Court
ought not to have passed the impugned order. He further
submitted that the learned Sessions Court while passing
the impugned order has heavily relied upon the fact that
prior to the filing of Charge-sheet, the application filed by
the petitioner seeking regular bail had been rejected up to
this Court. However, after the rejection of the application
filed by the petitioner earlier, the investigation was
concluded by the investigating agency and the Charge-
sheet was filed and therefore, the petitioner was well within
his rights to renew his request for grant of bail and the
learned trial court had rightly allowed the said application
filed by the petitioner after taking all the relevant factors
into consideration. He, therefore, submitted that the order
impugned in the present petition suffers from the patent

Page 5 of 12
R/SCR.A/2140/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026

error in not considering the settled legal position. He,
therefore, submitted to allow the present petition and
quash and set aside the order impugned in the present
petition.

3.1 Learned senior counsel has sought to rely upon the
following judgements in support of his submissions:-

1. In the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in 2022
SCC OnLine Selection Committee 825
2. Abhimanue Etc. Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 2037
3. Bhagirathsinh s/o. Mahipat Singh Judeja Vs. State of
Gujarat reported in (1984) 1 SCC 284
4. Viruprakashappa Gouda and Another vs. State of
Karnataka and Another reported in (2017) 5 SCC 406
5. P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement
reported in (2020) 13 SCC 791

4. Learned Public Prosecutor Shri Hardik Dave has opposed
the present petition inter alia contending that the petitioner
herein was employed on a contractual basis as a
MGNREGA Technical Assistant. It was the duty of the
petitioner along with other co-accused to supervise the
work and ensure its completion. Upon completion, they
were responsible for issuing a C.C. (Completion Certificate).
However, the present accused has not issued a single C.C.
nor have they visited any sites. In collusion with other co-
accused, despite knowing that the agency had not provided

Page 6 of 12
R/SCR.A/2140/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026

prescribed material, they intentionally submitted false bills
to the Government as genuine and for that purpose, he
received the amount of Rs.5,74,000/- from Jalaram and
Murlidhar Enterprises. And certain documents were also
recovered during the course of the investigation which
revealed the involvement and complicity of the petitioner in
the offence in question. The offence committed by the
petitioner and another co-accused had societal
repercussions which are on a large scale. He further
submitted that prior to filing an application for grant of bail
before the learned trial Court which was allowed vide order
dated 08.10.2025, the petitioner had filed similar such
applications before the learned trial Court, learned
Sessions Court and this Court and before all the three
forums, the petitioner had been unsuccessful. The very
same learned trial court had dismissed the earlier
application filed by the petitioner inter alia on the ground
of seriousness of the offence against the petitioner. After
having dismissed the earlier application filed by the
petitioner the very same trial Court vide order dated
08.10.2025 had allowed the successive application filed by
the petitioner for bail merely because Charge-sheet was
filed in the interregnum. It is settled law that merely filing
of Charge-sheet cannot be said to be a change in
circumstances which would entitle an accused for grant of
bail. The learned trial Court while allowing the application
filed by the petitioner has failed to note any other change
in circumstances. It is settled legal position that while
considering an application filed by the accused,
seriousness of the offence alleged as well as the role

Page 7 of 12
R/SCR.A/2140/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026

attributed to the accused is also required to be taken into
consideration. However, the learned trial Court had not
discussed any such aspects in its order granting bail to the
petitioner. Therefore, the prosecution had approached the
learned Sessions Court by filing an application under
Section 483(3) of the BNSS and learned Sessions Court
vide an elaborate order impugned in the present petition,
has quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned
trial Court granting bail to the petitioner. He further
submitted that the petitioner is an influential person and
there are all chances, he may try to temper with the case of
the prosecution. He submitted that the learned Sessions
Court has rightly passed an order impugned in the present
petition by considering the seriousness of offence as
alleged against the petitioner and therefore, the same
requires no interference at the hands of this Court. He
therefore submitted to dismiss the present petition.

5. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

6. It is no more res integra that bail once granted to the
accused cannot be cancelled mechanically. The Hon’ble
Apex Court in its judgment in the case of Shabeen Ahmed
vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2025 (4) SCC 172 as
well as in its judgment in the case of Ajwar Vs. Waseem
and Another reported in 2024 (10) SCC 768 has held that
bail once granted ought not be cancelled in a mechanical
manner. However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail
is always open to interference by the superior court. If
there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he

Page 8 of 12
R/SCR.A/2140/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026

has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order
can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the
bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior court if it
transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant
material available on record or not looked into the gravity
of the offence or the impact on the society resulting in such
an order. It is in this context that the merits of the order
impugned in the petition as well as merits of the order
passed by the learned trial Court granting the bail to the
petitioner are required to be examined.

7. The F.I.R. in question came to be lodged against the
petitioner and other co-accused on 30 th May, 2025. It is
alleged in the F.I.R. that two agencies namely Murlidhar
Enterprises and Jalaram Enterprises had carried the
construction work of road under MGNREGA Scheme.
Those two agencies were required to undertake work of
only one road in village. They did such work into 336
compartments using the material approved for the work.
They had also raised false bills for the said work showing
purchase of material and had thus siphoned off the
amount of Rs.19,64,575/-. It is the case of the prosecution
that the petitioner along with other co-accused have
neglected their duties by failing to conduct site visits or
issue legitimate C.C. and deliberately submitted fraudulent
bills to the Government. It is the further case of the
prosecution that with the said modus operandi similar
such scam has been committed in 56 other villages and the
total amount of Rs.7.30 Crores of the public money has
been siphoned away.

Page 9 of 12
R/SCR.A/2140/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026

8. Perusal of the order impugned in the present petition
indicates that mainly three factors have weighed by the
learned Sessions Court in passing the impugned order,
which read thus:-
1. seriousness of the offence alleged
2. role played by the petitioner in the offence
3. earlier application filed by the petitioner had been
dismissed by the learned trial Court and the
observation of the learned trial Court,

and these valid factors have not been taken into
consideration by the learned trial Court while passing the
order granting bail to the petitioner. If the order passed by
the learned trial Court granting bail to the petitioner is
perused, it appears that the learned trial Court made the
observations that the offence alleged against the petitioner
is a serious economic offence and it is an offence against
the society and is punishable with the life imprisonment
and that the petitioner is the co-accused in the offence.
Against this the learned trial Court has observed that
seriousness of the offence alone may not be a sole ground
to reject the bail. And as per the settled legal principles,
until the guilt of the accused is proved, the accused is
presumed to be innocent. The learned trial Court has also
taken aspect that the petitioner is in custody since
23.07.2025 and has undergone incarceration for 90 days.
The investigation of the offence is over and Charge-sheet is
filed and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in the
near future.

Page 10 of 12
R/SCR.A/2140/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026

9. Thus, the learned Sessions Court does not appear to be
correct in observing that the learned trial Court has not
taken the aspect of seriousness of offence and the role
played by the petitioner in consideration. The learned trial
Court while considering the application for bail filed by the
accused is required to strike the balance between the
interest of the society and the personal liberty of the
accused. It is required to be noted that the prosecution has
cited as many as 284 witnesses in the Charge-sheet and
the trial of the offence had not commenced when the
learned trial Court passed an order granting bail to the
petitioner and the petitioner had already undergone
incarceration for a period of 90 days as on that day.
Considering the number of witnesses cited by the
prosecution there is no possibility of the trial of the offence
getting concluded in the near future. Therefore, the learned
trial Court had rightly exercised its discretion in favour of
the petitioner. Having regard to reasons given by the
learned trial Court for granting the bail to the petitioner,
those reasons cannot be termed as perverse. Learned
Public Prosecutor is also not in a position to demonstrate
any perversity in the order of the learned trial Court which
would render the order in question to be unsustainable.
The order of learned trial Court being examined on the
touch stones referred to herein above, it cannot at all said
to be an unreasoned order or a perverse order. So far as
the dismissal of the earlier application filed by the
petitioner in the learned trial Court is concerned, the
learned trial Court in its order has clearly observed that

Page 11 of 12
R/SCR.A/2140/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026

the investigation was at a nascent stage at the relevant
time and thereafter, the Charge-sheet being filed by the
Investigating Agency, the order in question came to be
passed by the learned trial Court. Merely because the
learned trial Court has dismissed the earlier application
filed by the applicant citing the pendency of the
investigation, it could not be said that the learned trial
Court ought not have considered the successive application
filed by the petitioner on that ground alone. The learned
Sessions Court while passing the impugned order had not
taken the aspect of prolonged incarceration of the
petitioner into consideration. The offence being economical
offence, it appears that this aspect has heavily weighed
with the learned Sessions Court while passing the
impugned order. However, merely because the offence
being an economic offence, the accused cannot be denied a
legitimate right to bail. More particularly, when there is no
likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future.

10. Having regard to the aforesaid aspects, the order impugned
in the present petition deserves to be quashed and set
aside and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule
is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

sd/-
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
NABILA
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: NABILABANU MOHAMADNOOR PATNIJAMAT(HC00630), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 25/03/2026 17:36:53

Page 12 of 12