R/CR.RA/1314/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO. 1314 of 2019 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No √ ========================================================== MUMANBHAI POPATBHAI BHARWAD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR R G CHAUDHARY(6428) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR BH SOLANKI(5353) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 17/03/2026 JUDGMENT [1.0] By way of present application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), the applicant – original complainant has prayed to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 – original accused vide order dated 22.07.2019 passed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in the proceedings of Criminal Misc. Application No.2196/2019. [2.0] A complaint being I-CR No.88/2019 came to be Gled by the present applicant – original complainant against respondent No.2 – original accused for the oHences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) in connection with which the respondent No.2 herein – original accused Gled an application being R/CR.RA/1314/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 Criminal Misc. Application No.2196/2019 seeking anticipatory bail which came to be allowed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) vide order dated 22.07.2019 subject to certain terms and conditions wherein one of the conditions imposed was that the original accused will not involve himself into any oHence of any nature. It is the case of the present applicant that despite aforesaid conditions, the respondent No.2 – accused has committed three oHences for which FIR has been registered and therefore, the present applicant – original complainant has Gled the present application seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 – original accused. [3.0] Heard learned advocate appearing for the respective parties. [4.0] Learned advocate Mr. R.G. Chaudhary appearing for the applicant has submitted that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is illegal, improper and perverse without considering or appreciating the evidence on record. He has further submitted that accused is a public servant and clerk in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad and has fabricated and forged the rent agreement in collusion with Notary. Though the Investigating OKcer opposed the bail application, the learned Sessions Judge without assigning any reasons straightway granted anticipatory bail to the accused. Even, learned Sessions Judge has imposed the condition on the respondent – accused that the accused shall not tamper with the prosecution witness and shall not indulge in any type of similar activity though three oHences are registered against the accused. He has referred to list of eight cases registered against the accused and stated that without assigning any reason qua antecedents of the accused, the learned Sessions Judge has granted anticipatory bail to the accused. Hence, he has requested to allow the present application and cancel the bail granted to respondent No.2 – original accused. He has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court R/CR.RA/1314/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 in the case of Kanwar Singh Meena vs. State of Rajasthan [(2012)12 SCC 180]; Neeru Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 2015 SC 3703]; Prakash Kadam and Etc. vs. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta [(2011)6 SCC 189]; Deepak Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2022)8 SCC 559] as well as decision of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Desai Jigishbhai @ Rajubhai Nagjibhai [2016 JX (Guj) 104] and Yashwantkumar Hiralal Patel vs. Hiteshkumar Chunnalal Agrawal [2017 JX (Guj) 949]. [5.0] Learned advocate Mr. B.H. Solanki appearing for respondent No.2 – original accused has opposed the present application and submitted that dispute arose between respondent No.2 and his wife due to the present applicant. In this regard, various proceedings came to be Gled. Prior to registration of the complaint in present case, one complaint in nature of application was Gled before the Sabarmati Police Station on 25.09.2018 and thereafter, another FIR being I-CR No.55/2019 came to be Gled for the oHence under Section 498-A and allied oHences with Sabarmati Police Station and another FIR being I-CR No.145/2019 came to be Gled Vastrapur Police Station for the oHence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506(1) and 114 of the IPC. He has further submitted that the respondent No.2 has Gled a cross-complaint against the present applicant with Vastrapur Police Station. He has further submitted that another complaint under Section 145 of the CrPC is Gled by the wife of the respondent – accused and subsequently proceedings are Gled which are not criminal oHence. He has further argued that maintenance proceedings and search warrant proceedings are not terms as any oHence and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has assigned proper reasons while granting anticipatory bail to the respondent No.2 and no case is made out for cancellation of bail. [6.0] At the outset, it is worth to mention that parameters for grant of bail R/CR.RA/1314/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 and cancellation of bail both are diHerent. Learned Sessions Judge while granting anticipatory bail recorded the reasons and while deciding bail application, merits of the case are not required to be discussed. Learned Sessions Judge has properly used the discretion and the reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge does not call for any interference as applicant failed to show that the said reasons are perverse and contrary. Herein, the complaint being I-CR No.88/2019 came to be Gled by the present applicant – original complainant against respondent No.2 – original accused for the oHences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the IPC in connection with which the respondent No.2 is granted anticipatory bail on 22.07.2019 keeping in mind the ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 and learned Sessions Judge has assigned proper reasons and has exercised the jurisdiction properly. Learned advocate for the applicant failed to show any supervening circumstances or breach of any condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge while granting the bail to the accused and that the respondent No.2 has taken undue advantage or tampered with the evidence and committed breach of any condition. In absence of any such supervening, question does not arise to cancel the bail mechanically as cancellation of bail adversely aHects the liberty of a person considering his fundamental right to life and liberty and therefore, this Court is not inclined to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No.2 – original accused. Whatever antecedents of respondent No.2 – accused have been shown by the applicant are either prior to registration of oHence of present case or personal in nature like maintenance proceedings under Section 498-A of the IPC and issuance of search warrant which is Gled by the wife of the accused and in connection of one of the oHences, cross-complaint is also and hence, merely registration of oHence does not mean that the respondent No.2 has indulged in similar type of illegal activities and any oHence is registered after being granted R/CR.RA/1314/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 anticipatory bail. [6.1] It goes without saying that the criteria or parameters for granting bail to an accused and canceling bail are signiGcantly diHerent and must be considered separately by the Court. It is pertinent to note that the Court is not required to determine whether the evidence favors the accused or the prosecution at this stage. Instead, the Court must consider whether a prima facie case exists against the accused, the material collected against them, the severity of the punishment, and whether a charge-sheet has been Gled. The Court must assess whether further detention of the accused is necessary or if his presence is required during the investigation. Considering the aforementioned factors, the Court must also ensure the presence of the accused during the trial after granting bail. [7.0] This Court deems it proper to refer to the judgment in the case of Ajwar v. Waseem [2024 INSC 438], wherein the Apex Court observed that the same Court which granted bail to an accused can cancel the bail if there are serious allegations against him, even if the accused has not misused the bail. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be canceled. However, once bail is granted, it ought not to be canceled in a mechanical manner. An unreasonable or perverse order of bail may invite interference by the Apex Court. Personal liberty is one of the cherished Constitutional freedoms, and once bail is granted during the pendency of the trial, it must only be retracted in the face of grave circumstances. [8.0] In the present case, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is based on sound legal principles and reasoning. Therefore, no case is made out to interfere with the order of the learned Sessions Judge. Even no allegations have been made by the original complainant (applicant) that the R/CR.RA/1314/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 accused has misused his liberty. Merely alleging that the accused is a public servant and apprehending that he may tamper with the evidence is not suKcient grounds to cancel the bail, especially since the learned Sessions Court has imposed suitable conditions while granting bail to the accused. Any detailed appreciation of evidence, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided while deciding a bail application. [9.0] So far as authorities relied on by the learned advocate for the applicant is concerned, same are distinguishable with the facts of the present case and are not applicable to the case on hand. [10.0] In view of the above, the present application stands dismissed. 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 18/03/2026 11:23:33