R/CR.MA/12342/2025(GJHC240429282025) ORDER DATED: 03/09/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO. 12342 of 2025 ========================================================== AKSHIKA D/O SUMIT BHISANDAS SAINI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR RAMNANDAN SINGH(1126) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR HRIDAY BUCH WITH MR. JAIMIN R DAVE(7022) WITH MS VRITIKA SAJNANI for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Date : 03/09/2026 ORAL ORDER 1.This is an application for cancellation of bail preferred by the present applicant – original complainant under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (‘the BNSS’ for short), seeking quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 26.05.2025 passed by the learned trial Court i.e. 6 th Additional Sessions Judge at Gandhinagar in Criminal Misc. Application No.716 of 2025, whereby the learned trial Court has granted anticipatory bail to the respondent–original accused in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11994012250048 of 2025 registered with Sabarmati Railway Police Station, District Ahmedabad City, for the offences punishable under Sections 74, 75, 76 and 79 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. Page 1 of 19 R/CR.MA/12342/2025(GJHC240429282025) ORDER DATED: 03/09/2026 2.Rule. Learned APP and learned advocate Mr.Hriday Buch with learned advocate Mr.Jaimin Dave waive service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent – State and respondent no.2– accused, respectively. 3.Learned advocate appearing for the applicant has vehemently submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the gravity and seriousness of the offence alleged against the respondent–accused and has mechanically granted bail. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed without proper consideration of the material available on record, which has adversely affected the ongoing investigation. It is further contended that the possibility of the respondent–accused tampering with the prosecution evidence and influencing witnesses cannot be ruled out. 3.1 It is further submitted that while considering the bail application preferred by the respondent–accused, the learned trial Court did not adequately examine the evidence collected during the course of investigation and therefore, committed a grave error in exercising its discretion in favour of the accused. The learned advocate has drawn attention to the serious allegations levelled against the respondent–accused in the FIR and submitted that the nature and gravity of such accusations were not properly appreciated by the learned trial Court while granting bail. Page 2 of 19 R/CR.MA/12342/2025(GJHC240429282025) ORDER DATED: 03/09/2026 3.2 Referring to the documents and material collected by the Investigating Officer, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that ample evidence has been gathered during the investigation, which, prima facie, establishes the direct involvement of the respondent–accused in the commission of the alleged offence. Despite the availability of such incriminating material, the learned trial Court failed to assign proper weight to the same and erroneously granted bail to the respondent–accused. 3.3 It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order granting bail suffers from non-application of mind and improper appreciation of the material on record. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the strength of the evidence collected during investigation and the likelihood of prejudice to a fair investigation, it is submitted that the present application may be allowed by cancelling the bail granted to the respondent–accused in the interest of justice. 4.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has adopted the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the applicant and has further submitted that the impugned order granting bail to the respondent–accused is contrary to the material available on record. It is contended that the learned Trial Court has granted bail without properly appreciating the evidence collected during the course of investigation and without taking into R/CR.MA/12342/2025(GJHC240429282025) ORDER DATED: 03/09/2026 consideration the gravity and seriousness of the offence alleged against the respondent–accused. 4.1 It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer, wherein specific grounds were raised opposing the grant of bail. The contents of the said affidavit, which were material and relevant for deciding the bail application, have not been duly considered by the learned Trial Court while exercising its discretion in favour of the respondent–accused. 4.2 Learned APP has further submitted that having regard to the nature of the allegations, the seriousness of the offence, and the material collected during investigation, the case clearly warranted custodial interrogation of the respondent–accused. 4.3 It is, therefore, submitted that the learned Trial Court has exercised its discretion in an erroneous manner and that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the present application, cancel the bail granted to the respondent– accused. 5.Per contra, learned advocate appearing for the respondent– accused has opposed the present application and submitted R/CR.MA/12342/2025(GJHC240429282025) ORDER DATED: 03/09/2026 that the impugned order granting bail is a well-reasoned and speaking order passed upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended that the learned Trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously and in accordance with settled principles of law and, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its jurisdiction. 5.1. It is further submitted that while passing the impugned order, the learned Trial Court has extensively considered all relevant aspects, including the nature of allegations, the material collected during investigation, and the submissions advanced by both sides. After appreciating the entire material available on record, the learned Trial Court found it appropriate to enlarge the respondent–accused on bail. Hence, it cannot be said that the order suffers from any illegality, perversity, or non-application of mind so as to justify cancellation of bail. 5.2 It is also submitted that the applicant has failed to point out any supervening circumstance warranting cancellation of bail. In particular, it is not the case that the respondent–accused has violated or flouted any of the conditions imposed while granting bail. There is no allegation that the respondent–accused has attempted to tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, obstruct the course of justice, or misuse the liberty granted by the Court. R/CR.MA/12342/2025(GJHC240429282025) ORDER DATED: 03/09/2026 5.3. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is submitted that no case is made out for cancellation of bail. The present application, being devoid of merits, deserves to be rejected and the bail granted to the respondent–accused may kindly be continued. 6.1. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the present application has been filed merely on the basis of presumptions and assumptions, without placing on record any cogent material or demonstrating the existence of any supervening or prevailing circumstances warranting interference with the order granting bail. 6.2. The case of the applicant is that on 21.03.2025, respondent No.2 took her to a hotel room, and caught her by the neck and kissed her, and then tried to touch her improperly. He pushed her onto the bed and tried to open her clothes. Though the alleged incident took place on 21.03.2025, the complaint was filed only on 26.04.2025. 6.3. The anticipatory bail was granted after considering the circumstances placed before the Court, as it was noticed that R/CR.MA/12342/2025(GJHC240429282025) ORDER DATED: 03/09/2026 the police had already collected the CCTV footage from the hotel, the Court had also taken into consideration, the age of respondent No.2, who is 69 years old. The Court further considered that respondent No.2 had no past criminal history, all these circumstances were considered while granting him anticipatory bail. 6.4. The fact that the allegation relates to molestation and sexual harassment inside an isolated hotel room was also before the Court, though the seriousness of the allegation cannot be ignored, but the same time, that fact alone cannot be a ground for cancellation of bail after the Court has already considered the relevant circumstances and granted anticipatory bail. 6.5. The scope of an application for cancellation of bail is different from that of an application seeking bail. Once bail has been granted, its cancellation requires a proper ground. The Court must find some circumstance which makes the continuance of bail unjustified. Such a ground may arise where the accused has misused the liberty granted to him, tried to influence the witnesses, tampered with the evidence, obstructed the investigation, evaded the process of law or committed any similar offence. Cancellation may also be considered where the order granting bail suffers from a patent illegality or perversity. Page 7 of 19 R/CR.MA/12342/2025(GJHC240429282025) ORDER DATED: 03/09/2026 6.6. In the present case, no such circumstance is brought before this Court. There is no allegation that respondent No.2 has misused the liberty granted to him. There is also nothing to show that he has threatened or influenced the applicant or any witness, tampered with the evidence or obstructed the investigation. No further offence is alleged against him during the period in which he remained on anticipatory bail. 6.7. Learned advocates for the applicant have submitted that the chargesheet has already been filed and the case has been committed. It is relevant in the present case as the investigation is already over and the material collected by the investigating agency is now before the trial Court. There is no material to show that respondent No.2 has caused any prejudice to the investigation. 6.8. The present application, in substance, seeks reconsideration of the reasons on which anticipatory bail was granted. The allegations were already before the Court at that stage, the delay in lodging the complaint was also before the Court, the Court has considered the fact that the CCTV footage had already been collected, the Court had also considered the age and criminal antecedents of respondent No.2. No new circumstance has been brought before this Court which would justify taking a different view at this stage. Page 8 of 19 R/CR.MA/12342/2025(GJHC240429282025) ORDER DATED: 03/09/2026 6.9. The seriousness of the allegations is a relevant consideration. But it cannot, by itself, result in cancellation of anticipatory bail. This Court is conscious that the alleged incident is stated to have taken place in an isolated hotel room and that the allegations concern the dignity and bodily autonomy of the applicant. The same, however, does not dispense with the requirement of showing a legally sustainable ground for cancellation. 6.10. The Court is therefore unable to find any misuse of liberty by respondent No.2. There is also no material to show interference with the investigation or the administration of justice. The order granting anticipatory bail does not suffer from any patent illegality or perversity requiring interference in the present proceedings. 6.11 Upon a careful examination of the findings recorded and the conclusions arrived at by the learned Judge, this Court finds that all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case have been duly considered. The impugned order reflects proper application of mind to the material available on record, and detailed as well as cogent reasons have been assigned by the learned Judge while passing the said order. This Court does not find any perversity, illegality, or infirmity in the reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Court warranting interference. Page 9 of 19 R/CR.MA/12342/2025(GJHC240429282025) ORDER DATED: 03/09/2026 6.12 It is well settled that the parameters governing rejection of a bail application at the initial stage and cancellation of bail already granted by a competent Court are distinct and operate in different spheres. Once bail has been granted, its cancellation can be justified only upon the existence of cogent and overwhelming circumstances, such as misuse of liberty by the accused or the emergence of supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation. 6.13. In the present case, the learned advocate for the applicant has failed to point out any supervening circumstance that has arisen subsequent to the grant of bail. Furthermore, it is not even the case of the applicant and the State that the respondent–accused has misused the liberty granted by the Court, breached any of the conditions imposed, tampered with evidence, influenced witnesses, or otherwise acted in a manner prejudicial to the fair conduct of the proceedings. In the absence of any such material, no case is made out for cancellation of the bail granted by the competent Court. 6.14. In the case of P. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 552, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has enumerated the circumstances, when bail could be canceled and one of the conditions stated therein is the misuse of the liberty granted to the accused concerned R/CR.MA/12342/2025(GJHC240429282025) ORDER DATED: 03/09/2026 by the Court by involving himself in a subsequent crime. 6.15 Further, it would be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajwar Vs. Waseem reported in 2024 INSC 438, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision, in paragraphs 27 and 28, has observed as under : “27. The considerations that weigh with the appellate Court for setting aside the bail order on an application being moved by the aggrieved party include any supervening circumstances that may have occurred after granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the accused while R/CR.MA/12342/2025(GJHC240429282025) ORDER DATED: 03/09/2026 on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of threats being extended to the witnesses while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to tamper with the evidence in any manner. We may add that this list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the court must be cautious that at the stage of granting bail, only a prima facie case needs to be examined and detailed reasons relating to the merits of the case that may cause prejudice to the accused, ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bail order should reveal the factors that have been considered by the Court for granting relief to the accused. 28. In Jagjeet Singh (supra), a three- Judges bench of this Court, has observed that the power to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C is of wide amplitude and the High Court or a Sessions Court, as the case may be, is bestowed with considerable discretion while deciding an [2024] 5 S.C.R. 593 Ajwar v. Waseem and Another application for bail. But this discretion is R/CR.MA/12342/2025(GJHC240429282025) ORDER DATED: 03/09/2026 not unfettered. The order passed must reflect due application of judicial mind following well established principles of law. In ordinary course, courts would be slow to interfere with the order where bail has been granted by the courts below. But if it is found that such an order is illegal or perverse or based upon utterly irrelevant material, the appellate Court would be well within its power to set aside and cancel the bail.” 6.16 In the case of Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration), reported in (1978) 1 SCC 118, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to observe that the concept of setting aside the unjustified, illegal or perverse order is totally different from the concept of canceling the bail on the ground that the accused has misconducted himself or because of some new facts are requiring such cancellation. In Paragraph No.16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court Court has observed as under : "16. Section 439 of the new Code confers special powers on High Court or Court of Session regarding bail. This was also the position under Section 498 CrPC of the old Code. That is to say, even if a Magistrate refuses to grant bail to an accused person, R/CR.MA/12342/2025(GJHC240429282025) ORDER DATED: 03/09/2026 the High Court or the Court of Session may order for grant of bail in appropriate cases. Similarly under Section 439(2) of the new Code, the High Court or the Court of Session may direct any person who has been released on bail to be arrested and committed to custody. In the old Code, Section 498(2) was worded in somewhat different language when it said that a High Court or Court of Session may cause any person who has been admitted to bail under sub-section (1) to be arrested and may commit him to custody. In other words, under Section 498(2) of the old Code, a person who had been admitted to bail by the High Court could be committed to custody only by the High Court. Similarly, if a person was admitted to bail by a Court of Session, it was only the Court of Session that could commit him to custody. This restriction upon the power of entertainment of an application for committing a person, already admitted to bail, to custody, is lifted in the new Code under Section 439(2). Under Section 439(2) of the new Code a High Court may commit a person released on bail under Chapter R/CR.MA/12342/2025(GJHC240429282025) ORDER DATED: 03/09/2026 XXXIII by any Court including the Court of Session to custody, if it thinks appropriate to do so. It must, however, be made clear that a Court of Session cannot cancel a bail which has already been granted by the High Court unless new circumstances arise during the progress of the trial after an accused person has been admitted to bail by the High Court. If, however, a Court of Session had admitted an accused person to bail, the State has two options. It may move the Sessions Judge if certain new circumstances have arisen which were not earlier known to the State and necessarily, therefore, to that Court. The State may as well approach the High Court being the superior Court under Section 439(2) to commit the accused to custody. When, however, the State is aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge granting bail and there are no new circumstances that have cropped up except those already existed, it is futile for the State to move the Sessions Judge again and it is competent in law to move the High Court for cancellation of the bail. This position follows from the subordinate R/CR.MA/12342/2025(GJHC240429282025) ORDER DATED: 03/09/2026 position of the Court of Session vis-a-vis the High Court." 6.17 The aforesaid observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Puran Vs. Rambilas & Anr., reported in (2001) 6 SCC 338 as well as in case of Abdul Basit alias Raju & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Cahudhary & Anr., reported in (2014) 10 SCC 754. 6.18 In the case of Ranjit Singh Vs. State of M.P., reported in (2013) 16 SCC 797, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under in Para-19 : "19. It needs no special emphasis to state that there is distinction between the parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of bail. There is also a distinction between the concept of setting aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse order and cancellation of an order of bail on the ground that the accused has misconducted himself or certain supervening circumstances warrant such cancellation. If the order granting bail is a perverse one or passed on irrelevant materials, it can be annulled by the superior court. We have R/CR.MA/12342/2025(GJHC240429282025) ORDER DATED: 03/09/2026 already referred to various paragraphs of the order passed by the High Court. We have already held that the learned trial Judge has undefined misconstrued the order passed by the High Court. However, we may hasten to add that the learned Single Judge has taken note of certain supervening circumstances to cancel the bail, but we are of the opinion that in the obtaining factual matrix the said exercise was not necessary as the grant of bail was absolutely illegal and unjustified as the court below had enlarged the accused on bail on the strength of the order passed in Ranjeet Singh v. State of M.P. [Ranjeet Singh v. State of M.P., MCRC No. 701 of 2013, order dated 1- 2-2013 (MP)] remaining oblivious of the parameters for grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC. It is well settled in law that grant of bail though involves exercise of discretionary power of the court, yet the said exercise has to be made in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course." 6.19 At this juncture, the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dolat Ram & Ors. Vs. State of R/CR.MA/12342/2025(GJHC240429282025) ORDER DATED: 03/09/2026 Haryana, reported in 1995(1) SCC 349, is required to be recollected. It was observed therein that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail already granted. The grounds for cancellation of bail though are broad, but illustrative and not exhaustive; are interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The Court should satisfy for availability of the grounds for satisfying of the bail or cancellation of the bail and one of the possibility is accused being absconded. The bail once granted, should not in a mechanical manner, without any grounds, or supervening circumstance, which affects the very principle of fair trial be cancelled. 6.20 In the present case, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is founded upon sound legal principles and is supported by cogent and well-reasoned findings. This Court finds no infirmity, perversity, or illegality in the said order so as to warrant interference in exercise of its jurisdiction. 7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has failed to make out any case warranting interference with the impugned order granting bail in favour of the respondent–accused. No sufficient grounds, reasons, or supervening circumstances have been brought on record so as to justify cancellation of bail or to R/CR.MA/12342/2025(GJHC240429282025) ORDER DATED: 03/09/2026 persuade this Court to take a different view than that taken by the learned Trial Court. 8. Accordingly, the present application is rejected. Rule is discharged. (SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) URIL RANA Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: RANA URIL K(HC01406), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 03/09/2026 15:35:59