R/CR.A/389/2026(GJHC240107172026) ORDER DATED: 21/08/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO. 389 of 2026 ========================================================== VIKRAM KANTILAL AAZAD ( VIKRAMBHAI KANTILAL PARMAR) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR MAHADWEEP APURVA(13005) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR M. ASIF D DASADIYA(10521) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2 MR JAYDIPSINH J SOLANKI(13668) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2 MS MAITHILI MEHTA, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 21/08/2026 ORDER [1.0] ADMIT. Learned APP Ms. Maithili Mehta and learned advocate Mr. Jaydipsinh J. Solanki waive service of notice of admission for respective respondents. [2.0] By way of present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “Atrocity Act”), the appellant – original complainant has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.3549 of 2025, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application Iled by the present appellant requesting to cancel the regular bail granted to the respondent No.2 – original accused. [3.0] The respondent No.2 herein is the original accused who has been granted regular bail by the coordinate Bench vide order dated 23.09.2025 in connection with FIR being C.R. R/CR.A/389/2026(GJHC240107172026) ORDER DATED: 21/08/2026 No.11192015250902 of 2025 registered with Changodar Police Station, Ahmedabad for the oJences punishable under Sections 296(b), 351(3) of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Atrocity Act. While granting the said appeal, the coordinate Bench imposed condition Nos.[e] and [g] whereby the coordinate Bench ordered the respondent No.2 – accused to mark presence before the concerned police station on alternate monday of every English calendar month for a period of six months between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. and not to enter into the revenue limits of District Ahmedabad for a period of 12 months, except to mark presence before the concerned police station and to attend the court proceedings. However, it is alleged that the respondent No.2 – accused has committee breach of aforesaid conditions and has never marked his presence before the concerned police station. Therefore, the appellant – original complainant Iled application seeking cancellation of bail which came to be rejected. Hence, present appeal is preferred. [4.0] Heard learned advocate for the appellant, learned APP for respondent – State of Gujarat and learned advocate for the accused. [5.0] Learned advocate for the appellant and learned APP have submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in not considering the yardstick for cancellation of bail and though the accused did not mark presence before the concerned police station and entered into District Ahmedabad prior to completion of 12 months, learned Sessions Judge has erroneously rejected the application Iled by the present R/CR.A/389/2026(GJHC240107172026) ORDER DATED: 21/08/2026 appellant. Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal. [6.0] Learned advocate for the accused has opposed the present appeal by submitting that the accused has never committed breach of any of the conditions of bail granted by the coordinate Bench of this Court and even otherwise, the charge-sheet is Iled and accused will abide by all and any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present appeal. [7.0] At the outset, it is worth to mention that the respondent No.2 – accused was enlarged on regular bail and criteria and yardstick for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are altogether diJerent. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. Subramani Gopalakrishnan and Ors. reported in (2011)5 SCC 296 as well as in the case of Dolat Ram and Ors. vs. State of Haryana reported in (1995)1 SCC 349 wherein it has been held that in absence of any supervening circumstances and merely on technical breach and merely the accused entered into revenue District of Ahmedabad or village is not a ground to cancel the bail in absence of any evidence with regard to tampering with evidence or threatening any witness. Further, the respondent No.2 – accused is regularly attending the Court proceedings and even charge-sheet is also Iled and hence, question does not arise to appear before the police station. This Court is of considered view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the application seeking cancellation of regular bail. Page 3 of 4 R/CR.A/389/2026(GJHC240107172026) ORDER DATED: 21/08/2026 [7.1] At this stage, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that he had requested for Military force near his house for protection purpose and has requested to consider the said prayer. It is needless to say that present appeal is Iled seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to respondent No.2 and the said submission is beyond the scope of present appeal and therefore, the request is not acceded to and if the appellant is aggrieved and if any such prevailing circumstances arises, it is always open for the appellant – original complainant to Ile appropriate proceedings. [8.0] In wake of the aforesaid discussion, present appeal being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. (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 21/08/2026 17:38:58