RAMESHKUMAR NANJIBAHI PRAJAPATIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.RA/719/2026                             ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
             SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 719 of 2026
==========================================================
                    RAMESHKUMAR NANJIBAHI PRAJAPATI
                                 Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
VISHAL K ANANDJIWALA(7798) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                            Date : 17/03/2026

                                 ORDER


1.     By way of the present application, the applicant has prayed to

       quash and set aside the order dated 28.2.2026 passed by the

       learned Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Deesa in ACB Case

       no.06 of 2023 during recording the evidence of the witness

       vide Exh.15 canceling the bail of the applicant, and to allow

       the applicant to cross-examine the first informant.


2.     Mr. Vishal Anandjiwala, learned advocate for the applicant

       submitted that the applicant being accused no.1 had remained

       continuously present before the learned Trial Court and had

       cooperated with the trial proceedings. It is stated that it is not

       because of the applicant but the illness of advocate that had

       delayed the trial. Learned advocate for the applicant thus



                                Page 1 of 5
      R/CR.RA/719/2026                          ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026




        submitted that the applicant cannot be punished because of

        conduct of the advocate. Mr. Anandjiwala further stated the

        advocate was sick and because of ill-health, could not remain

        present. Reference has also been made of certificate dated

        2.3.2026 by Dr. Natwar Modi in connection with the Advocate

        Mr. Mayank B. Acharya.


2.1     Mr. Vishal Anandjiwala, learned advocate for the applicant

        submits that as per the Rojnama, it is the first informant who

        has not remained present and thereafter, bailable warrant has

        been issued and on service of warrant, he remained present.

        The examination-in-chief of the informant concluded vide

        Exh.15 on 2.8.2025. The Muddamal had not reached the

        Court and therefore, the matter got adjourned. Thereafter,

        again on 28.2.2026, the Court had recorded that the

        Muddamal was not before the Court. Mr. Anandjiwala stated

        that the learned Trial Court had recorded about the conduct of

        the Nazir of the Court.


2.2     According to Mr. Anandjiwala, learned advocate for the

        applicant, the trial proceedings has not been delayed because

        of any of the conduct of the applicant himself. The Muddamal

        which becomes mandatory requirement in ACB Case was not

        before the Court for examination and also for reference. The


                                  Page 2 of 5
      R/CR.RA/719/2026                                       ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026




        learned Trial Court Judge was, thus, required to first keep the

        house in order and thereafter should have insisted for the

        cross-examination and appearance of the advocate. Learned

        advocate         for   the   applicant        submitted   that    the    cross-

        examination in ACB Case through vide conferencing would not

        be feasible since Muddamal was also required to be verified

        and accordingly, cross could have been conducted.


2.3     Mr. Anandjiwala, learned advocate for the applicant further

        submitted that keeping in mind the long practice of the

        advocate Mr. Acharya, the Court was required to give

        sympathetic hearing to the advocate, rather had canceled the

        bail of the accused and even the surety.


3.      Countering the arguments, Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned APP

        has referred to the observations made by the learned Trial

        Court Judge in the impugned order and submitted that the

        trial proceedings has been stalled since 7.7.2025 and if at all,

        the advocate on record could not attend the trial, then, the

        accused is required to change his advocate so that the trial

        proceedings goes on non-obstructed.


4.      On hearing the submissions of both the sides and having read

        the impugned order, it appears that the learned Trial Court



                                        Page 3 of 5
     R/CR.RA/719/2026                            ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026




       Judge was required to even direct the Nazir to keep the

       Muddamal ready for the process. The exemption application of

       the accused Exh.17 was allowed on the ground that the

       advocate would continue with the cross-examination. The

       learned Trial Court Judge has made certain observations with

       regard to adverse practice of the Nazir Department. If at all

       such process is adverse and not conducive, then, it becomes

       boundant duty of the Court to first instruct the staff. The

       accused had asked for the exemption on the day of the order.

       The learned Trial Court Judge has not observed that the

       accused was habitually remaining absent or that there was

       any dispute with regard to identification of the accused.


5.     Having considered the fact that the matter is under the

       Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and stopping the cross-

       examination would affect the accused adversely, thus the

       order impugned dated 28.2.2026 is set aside. The right of

       cross-examining the witness from the side of accused no.1 is

       reopened with a direction to the applicant-accused to file an

       undertaking before the Trial Court that he would keep his

       advocate on record present for cross-examination of the

       witness, and in failure of the applicant advocate on record to

       deal with the matter, the applicant would appoint another



                                Page 4 of 5
       R/CR.RA/719/2026                                                           ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026




          lawyer or may instruct the proxy lawyer to conduct the cross-

          examination.


6.        With these observations, the present application is disposed

          of. Direct service is permitted.



                                                                                                (GITA GOPI,J)
          Maulik



     Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
     Digitally signed by: MAULIK RAJESH PANDYA(HC00205), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/03/2026 18:50:01




                                                    Page 5 of 5