MOHANBHAI RAMESHBHAI TAVIYADversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

      R/CR.RA/805/2026                             ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
             SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 805 of 2026

==========================================================
                  MOHANBHAI RAMESHBHAI TAVIYAD & ORS.
                                Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR BHARGAV PANDYA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                             Date : 13/04/2026

                                  ORDER


1.      The present Criminal Revision Application No.805 of 2026
challenges the order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the learned 3 rd
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dahod in Criminal Revision
Application No.17 of 2026 under Sections 438, 442 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, whereby the learned Sessions
Judge, by allowing the application filed by the State, cancelled the
bail granted to all the three applicant-accused.


2.      Learned Advocate Mr. Maulik Soni along with his assistant
submitted that the applicants are all serving in police department
and the allegation is of illegal transportation of IMFL from Rajasthan
into the State of Gujarat.


2.1     Advocate Mr. Soni submitted it is the allegation of the State
that one TATA Punch vehicle containing 312 bottles (79.200 litres)



                                 Page 1 of 6
      R/CR.RA/805/2026                                        ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026




of IMFL was found in an abandoned condition near Talava Chokdi
while being chased by police personnel. The applicants were named
in the FIR and got arrested in connection with the alleged offence.


2.2     Advocate Mr. Soni submitted that the FIR was filed on
12.01.2026 and the remand application was moved on 13.01.2026.
On 22.01.2026, the remand application was rejected and bail was
allowed. On 06.02.2026, two revision applications were moved
before the Sessions Court as Criminal Revision Application No.16 of
2026 and Criminal Revision Application No.17 of 2026. The order
was passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court on 02.03.2026 in
Criminal Revision Application No.584 of 2026, whereby the Sessions
Court was directed to first decide Criminal Revision Application
No.17      of    2026    and     thereafter,     to   decide     Criminal      Revision
Application No.16 of 2026 after giving an opportunity of hearing to
the applicant-accused.


2.3     Advocate Mr. Soni submitted that the very order of the co-
ordinate        bench    would    itself   suggest     that    the    application       of
cancellation of bail was already pending before the Sessions Court.
Inspite of that, the Sessions Court instead of deciding the
application on the grounds raised entertained the report of the
State dated 11.03.2026 and cancelled the bail on 12.03.2026.
Advocate Mr. Soni submitted that the learned Judge only placed
reliance on the report dated 11.03.2026 of the police, where
actually, the mandate of this Court was to consider the cancellation
of bail by first hearing the grounds which have been in Criminal
Revision Application No.17 of 2026.


2.4     Advocate Mr. Soni submitted that the order itself becomes
vulnerable, illegal on the face of the record and prejudicial to the


                                       Page 2 of 6
    R/CR.RA/805/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026




applicants as accused, where Mr. Soni submitted that the grounds
raised before the Revision Court were:


(no.1) that the order of the lower Court granting the bail was false,
illegal, unjust and against the principle of natural justice;


(no.2) that the order had been passed without considering the
important question of law and facts and the order becomes
erroneous     since    the   learned   Judge    has   not    considered         the
Muddamal stock which was found during the raid;


(no.3) that the IMFL was of State of Rajasthan and there was a
direct connection of the accused for interstate, illegal transaction of
the prohibited articles;


(no.4) and that the finding of the lower court considering the record
case diary, FIR under prohibition article valued at Rs.66,646/- and
by considering the principle of bail as rule and jail as an exception,
having not found the case against the accused as exception and
only to ensure the presence of the accused when the matter was on
the state of investigation, allowed the bail thus the State has raised
that ground to the finding to contend that the lower Court had not
considered the facts of the offence;


(no.5) and the learned Judge has not considered the fact that the
accused are police persons and that they have tarnished the dignity
of the police by their act. The act was against the society and if they
are released on bail, then it would send false message to the
society. Inspite of that, the bail has been granted;


(no.6) considering the gravity of the offence and the punishment,
ground has been raised that it has not been case of releasing the


                                  Page 3 of 6
      R/CR.RA/805/2026                           ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026




accused on bail at the stage of the production. Further, since the
accused were aware of the intricacy of the law and therefore, there
are all possibilities of manipulating the evidence.


2.6     Advocate Mr. Soni submitted that the Court was required to
pass an order only on these grounds and ought not to have read
any other report of the police.


3.      Learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya submitted that the report
which was filed on 11.03.2026 was informing the Court regarding
the conduct of the accused of the breach of the condition, which
was ordered by the lower Court for marking the presence at the
concerned police station every first and fifteen day of the English
month, since the said condition was not fulfilled and therefore, the
police had moved the report which was with the sole purpose to
apprise the Court about the conduct of the accused.


3.1     APP Mr. Pandya submitted that the Court was considering the
matter for the cancellation of the bail already granted and the very
order of the bail was challenged which itself included the conditions
along with it. APP Mr. Pandya thus submitted that it cannot be said
that the new grounds has been raised for the consideration of the
Court.


3.2     Having considered the fact that the co-ordinate bench had
directed on 02.03.2026 to decide the Criminal Revision Application
No.17 of 2026 first, which itself would explain that the grounds
which had been raised in Criminal Revision Application No.17 of
2026 were required to be appreciated and entertained for giving
reasons for the cancellation of the bail. The order which has been
impugned dated 12.03.2026 of the learned 3 rd Additional District


                                  Page 4 of 6
     R/CR.RA/805/2026                                          ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026




and Sessions Judge, Dahod allowing the revision application and
ordering the respondent to surrender before the Investigating
Officer of Chakaliya Police Station, Taluka Dahod, was observing the
fact in para 11 which reads as under:


       “They have wilfully not abided the condition imposed
       upon by the learned trial Court while enlarging them
       on bail, which is evident from the report submitted
       by the applicant Police Inspector of Chakaliya Police
       Station.
       Therefore, present revision application deserves to
       be allowed and therefore, the order passed by the
       learned trial Court of granting bail application of
       respondent-accused dated 23.01.2026 is hereby set
       aside.
       It is pertinent to note that, though the learned
       advocate for respondent Mr. P.D. Bhatiya was
       instructed by the Court to make respondents remain
       present on this day but he stated that, though he
       contacted the respondents several times, they have
       not remained present before this Court today.
       Hence, I answer Issue No:1 in affirmative and for
       Issue No:2, I pass the following order.”


4.     The contention raised by the learned Advocate Mr. Maulik Soni
appears to be relevant. The learned Judge has not considered the
grounds      which      have   been    raised       by   the     State     praying       for
cancellation of the Bail already granted by the lower Court in
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.36 of 2026.


5.     In the result, the order dated 12.03.2026 of learned 3 rd
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dahod in Criminal Revision
Application No.17 of 2026 of cancelling the bail of the applicants is
set aside with a direction that the learned judge may relist the
Criminal Revision Application No.17 of 2026 on his file and again


                                      Page 5 of 6
              R/CR.RA/805/2026                                                  ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026




      decide the revision application on the grounds raised by the State
      by giving reasons to the grounds raised for the cancellation of the
      bail.


      6.        Let the matter be heard and decided preferably within 15
      days of the receipt of the writ of this Court. Direct service is
      permitted.



                                                                                             (GITA GOPI,J)
      PARMAR KRISH/26-SB



Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PARMAR KRISH(HC02348), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/04/2026 17:32:39




                                                      Page 6 of 6