Holding

Bail cannot be cancelled absent supervening circumstances; the alleged non‑disclosure does not constitute a ground for cancellation.

Summary

The Director of Globe Ecologistics filed a special criminal application under Section 439(2) of the CrPC seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused in a cyber‑crime case involving offences under IPC Sections 406, 420, 120B and IT Act Sections 66(c) and 66(d). The petitioner alleged that the accused concealed three prior criminal antecedents, which, if known, would have warranted denial of bail. The respondents contended that the bail was granted before any statutory requirement to disclose past cases and that no supervening circumstance justified cancellation. The Court examined the Supreme Court’s advisory framework in Zeba Khan (2026), the 2025 High Court circular on bail disclosures, and several Gujarat High Court precedents emphasizing that bail may be cancelled only on cogent, supervening grounds. Finding no such circumstance and noting that the disclosure requirement was not mandatory at the time of bail, the Court rejected the petition, leaving the bail order intact.

Issues considered

Whether non‑disclosure of prior criminal antecedents, in the absence of a statutory requirement, constitutes a ground for cancellation of bail.
Whether any supervening circumstance exists that justifies revoking the bail already granted.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 439(2)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 406, s. 420
Information Technology Act, 2000s. 66(c), s. 66(d)

Subjects

bail cancellationnon‑disclosurecriminal antecedentssupervening circumstancesCrPC Section 439cyber crimeIPC 420IT Acthigh court order

Judgment

R/SCR.A/2437/2023 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
2437 of 2023
================================================================
ARCHIT RAMRATAN AGRAWAL
Versus
PRADIP KUMAR, @ ABHISHEK KUMAR, @ RAVI, @ ABHINAV TIWARI,
S/O DINNANTH SINGH & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
PRANAV D THAKKAR(8501) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
VIJAYKUMAR B LIMBACHIYA(8763) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
ANURAG R RATHOR(9315) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK MEHTA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 26/02/2026
ORDER

1. The present petition is moved by the original complainant

who is the Director and authorised signatory of M/s.

Globe Ecologistics Private Limited having its Registered

O&ce at 62, New York Tower, Sarkhej Gandhinagar

Highway, Thaltej, Ahmedabad under Section 439(2) of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter

referred to in short as ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing and setting

aside the order dated 29.11.2022 passed below Exhibit

No.1 in Criminal Misc. Application No.3916 of 2022 by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions

Court, Ahmedabad and for cancellation of bail order

granted to the respondent accused dated 02.02.2022 in

Page 1 of 12
R/SCR.A/2437/2023 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.22444 of 2021.

The FIR No.11191067210070 of 2021 was registered with

the Cyber Crime Police Station, Ahmedabad for the

o>ences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B)

of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 66(c)

and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act.

2. The complainant prior to the present petition had moved

an application before the City Civil and Sessions Court,

Ahmedabad for cancellation of bail to the respondent.

Such application came to be rejected on 29.11.2022 by

the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal

Misc. Application No.3916 of 2022.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. Pranav Thakkar

submitted that the primary ground for making a prayer

for cancellation of bail is that the respondent No.1 while

making prayer for bail had suppressed the material fact

wherein he had not disclosed his earlier antecedents

which are three in number, apart from the present

matter. It is stated that if the Court had known about the

Page 2 of 12
R/SCR.A/2437/2023 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026

amount involved in each of the matters, it would have

certainly rejected the bail application. Learned advocate

Mr. Pranav Thakkar has placed reliance on the judgment

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Zeba Khan

v. State of U.P. and Others in Criminal Appeal No.825

of 2026, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.12669 of 2025.

Referring to the relevant Paragraphs 48 and 49, learned

Mr. Pranav Thakkar submitted that it is observed by the

Apex Court, that the accused seeking bail, at any stage of

proceedings, is under an obligation to disclose all

material particulars including criminal antecedents, duly

supported by an a&davit. It is further submitted that the

intention of the Apex Court insisting for disclosing of the

application is with a view to promote uniformity,

transparency and integrity in bail adjudication. Learned

advocate Mr. Pranav Thakkar reliance on Paragraph 49 of

the decision in the case of Zeba Khan (supra) is to

submit that the Apex Court has laid down the frame work,

though it is purely recommendatory in nature, evolved in

continuation of, and consonance with the principles laid

down by Court concerning full and candid disclosure in

bail proceedings. The framework is intended to act as a

Page 3 of 12
R/SCR.A/2437/2023 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026

facilitative guide, leaving it open to the respective Courts

to adopt, adapt or reBne the same in accordance with

their procedural framework and the exigencies of

individual cases. Adv. Thakkar contended that non-

disclosure of the earlier antecedents by the accused

should result in cancellation of bail granted.

4. While countering the arguments, learned advocate for

the respondent accused Mr. Anurag Rathore has relied on

the Circular No.RJ/21/2025, passed by the Registry of this

Court on 01.08.2025 relying on the judgment dated

18.07.2025 passed by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal

No.3053 of 2025 in the case of Kaushal Singh v. The

State of Rajasthan. Thus, it is submitted that the

Circular has been passed on 01.08.2025 while the bail

order which is sought to be cancelled is dated dated

02.02.2022 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application

No.22444 of 2021. It is further stated that the judgment

of Kaushal Singh (supra) as referred to in the Circular of

the Registrar (Judicial) would not have a binding force on

the application nor the recent judgment which has been

referred by the petitioner’s advocate Mr. Pranav Thakkar

Page 4 of 12
R/SCR.A/2437/2023 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026

of Zeba Khan (supra), which is dated 11.02.2026 having

persuasive value for the petitioner to abide by the norms

as recommended by the Apex Court since the bail

application was moved and granted much earlier.

Learned Advocate Mr. Rathor, thus submitted that the

cancellation of bail should be moved or entertained only

if there is a cogent case which is based on supervening

events which would make the release of the accused

having some deterring e>ect on the trial. Learned

advocate Mr. Anurag G. Rathor has relied on the

judgment of this Court dated 19.07.2024 in the case of

Kadarsha Latifsha Saiyed thro Jamilsha Kadarsha

Saiyed v. State of Gujarat in Criminal Revision

Application No.1058 of 2024 and the judgment dated

21.08.2024 in the case of Chauhan Mahendrasinh

Udesinh v. State of Gujarat in Criminal Revision

Application No.1277 of 2024.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Anurag R. Rathor has also placed

reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of

Akhtarbhai Noorbhai Shaikh v. State of Gujarat,

Page 5 of 12
R/SCR.A/2437/2023 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026

decided on 01.02.2019 in Criminal Miscellaneous

Application No.7933 of 2018 referring the facts of the

case stating that about 4 antecedents criminal in nature

of respondent No.5 and 3 and of respondent No.4 and 2

and 6 cases of respondent No.3 were not mentioned by

the accused persons in the bail application rather stated

that there were no criminal antecedents of any nature. It

is further submitted that the application for cancellation

of bail was declined observing that the incident was

about 10 months old, the injured have been discharged

from the hospital long time back. It is also a contention

of learned advocate Mr. Rathor that the case against the

respondent is not of any physical injury to any person

while the case against the respondent is of Section 420 of

IPC and the like sections.

6. The case which was earlier registered and which has

been referred by learned advocate for the petitioner are

three in number are referred herein under :-

a) FIR No.251 of 2016 registered with Shivajinagar Police

Station, Mumbai dated 04.07.2016 under Section 420 of

Page 6 of 12
R/SCR.A/2437/2023 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026

the IPC;

b) FIR No.344 of 2015 registered with Pydhuni Police

Station, Mumbai dated 02.09.2015 under Sections 420,

465, 467, 468, 471, 34, 411 and 216 of 2016 and under

Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the I.T. Act and;

(c) FIR of 2016 registered with Nayanagar Police Station,

Mumbai dated 12.06.2016 under Section 420 of IPC

7. It is also the argument of learned advocate Mr. Rathor for

the respondent No.1 that the Investigating O&cer has

also not referred to the earlier cases against the accused

which according to learned advocate Mr. Rathor would

not have been even the matter for the Investigating

O&cer to make a reference in the a&davit.

8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Mehta for

the respondent-State submitted that the a&davit of the

Investigating O&cer would generally cover information

from the Website : egujcop and since the earlier cases of

the respondent accused had been Bled in the State of

Maharashtra, then it would be the bounded duty of the

Page 7 of 12
R/SCR.A/2437/2023 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026

accused to disclose the details of his earlier antecedents,

which were not even made aware to the Investigating

O&cer.

9. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, this

Court earlier has considered the di>erence between the

rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage

and cancellation of bail. Some cogent and overwhelming

circumstances are necessary for an order directing

cancellation of bail order already granted. General

speaking, the ground for cancellation of bail would be

broadly, a ground to interfere or an attempt to interfere

with the due course of administration of justice or even

an attempt to evade or disturb the due course of justice

or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any

manner.

10. Here the bail was granted on the facts of the matter.

Although, it was necessary for the respondent accused to

have disclosed the earlier antecedents and was required

to Ble the details of the criminal antecedents against him,

Page 8 of 12
R/SCR.A/2437/2023 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026

however considering the decision which has been relied

upon by learned advocate Mr. Pranav Thakkar, i.e. Zeba

Khan (supra) where the Apex Court had given a frame

work in an illustrative form with a caveat, that it is purely

recommendatory in nature, keeping it open to the

concerned Court to adapt or reBne the same in

accordance with the procedural work and exigencies of

individual cases. The judgment of the Apex Court is

dated 11.02.2026.

11. The Circular on which reliance has been placed by

learned advocate for the respondent accused Mr. Anurag

Thakor is dated 01.08.2025 which is on the basis of the

judgment dated 18.07.2025 in the case of Kaushal

Singh v. The State of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal

No.3053 of 2025 and on the basis of the judgment, the

following observations have been made in the Circular :-

“In every application for bail presented to the High Court, the
petitioner shall state whether similar application has or has
not been made to the High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, and if made shall state the result thereof. The
petitioner/applicant shall also mention whether he/she is/was
involved in any other criminal case or not. If yes, particulars
and decisions thereof.”

Page 9 of 12
R/SCR.A/2437/2023 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026

12. Having considered the judgment in the case of Zeba

Khan (supra) dated 11.02.2026 and the Circular dated

01.08.2025, the format of bail application had not laid

down earlier to include the column for disclosure of the

criminal antecedents. The necessity of disclosing the

criminal cases and the particulars about the criminal

cases were by way of Circular No.RJ/21/2025 dated

01.08.2025 informed by the Registry, which now was

required to consider and adhere to verify from the

accused about the criminal antecedents pending against

him. Since there was no such mandate against the

accused to disclose the criminal cases against him, this

Court would not be in a position to consider it as non-

disclosure of criminal antecedents or as breach of any

condition of bail. Liberty once granted by way of bail

cannot be cancelled unless some supervening

circumstances are brought to the notice of the Court.

13. In the case of Kadarsha Latifsha Saiyed (supra), this

Court had referred to following cases, whose reference

would be necessary to justify the decision :-

Page 10 of 12
R/SCR.A/2437/2023 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026

“14. Thus in the case of Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana
reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, it has been held that bail
once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical
manner without considering whether any supervening
circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair
trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying
the concession of bail during the trial. In the case of X Vs.
State of Telangana, reported in 2018 (16) SCC 511, the
Apex Court has held that bail once granted should not be
cancelled unless a cogent case based on a supervening event
has been made out. It has been observed that second FIR is
not a supervening circumstance of such a nature, as would
warrant the cancellation of bail, which was granted by the
High Court. In the present case, the applicant was even
permitted to attend ‘Haj’ for the period between 06.06.2024
to 20.07.2024 and such permission was granted by
suspending the conditions taking into consideration all the
facts that the applicant would attend the trial in connection
with the subject First Information Report.

14. In the decision of this Court dated 21.08.2024 in Criminal

Revision Application No.1277 of 2024 (Chauhan

Mahendrasinh Udesinh v. State of Gujarat), this

Court had noted the judgment :-

“10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Gurcharan Singh &
Ors. Vs. State (Delhi Administration), reported in
(1978) 1 SCC 118, held two paramount considerations,
while considering petition for grant of bail in a non-bailable
o0ence, apart from the seriousness of the o0ence, there is
likelihood of the accused 1eeing from justice and his
tampering with prosecution witnesses. Both of them relate to
ensure a fair trial of the case. Therefore, to ensure a fair trial,
all considerations are explored while granting bail. Thus,
when the question is raised on the power to cancel bail, the
same has to be exercised with great care and
circumspection. Cogent and overwhelming circumstances are
necessary for an order seeking cancellation of bail.

Page 11 of 12
R/SCR.A/2437/2023 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026

12. This Court would like to refer to the decision in the case
of Merubhai Ramabhai Khodiyatar (Hun) Rabari v.
State of Gujarat reported in 2021 (2) G.L.R. 1175. In
Paragraph 16.1, it was held as under :-
“The grounds for cancellation of bail and grounds of
rejection of bail are two di0erent circumstances and
hence the consideration of the court on the issue also
becomes di0erent, while hearing the application for
cancellation of bail, the court has to be more rigid, as it
has to examine not only the possibility of violation, but
also the possible consequences. The power of
cancellation of bail must be exercised with care and
circumspection keeping in mind the urgent and
overwhelming circumstances. The bail already granted
should not be cancelled on a routine manner, as it
jeopardizes the personal liberty of the person. In the
present case, the respondent - State has not been able
to show any supervening circumstances, which would
re1ect that the liberty, granted to the accused, was
misused, and no longer conducive to a fair trial.”

15. Here, it is stated that the trial against the accused is at

the stage for recording of the testimony of the

complainant. No adverse remarks against the accused

had been brought to the notice of this Court after the

granting of bail. Now, that the trial is already in progress

and when there is no adverse act of the accused, nor

misuse of the liberty has been brought to the notice of

the Court, hence, this Court does not Bnd any reason to

entertain the present petition thus the same is rejected.
Sd/-

(GITA GOPI, J)
CAROLINE / DB # 44
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212), Principal pvt Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 27/02/2026 17:39:22

Page 12 of 12