R/CR.MA/15391/2026(GJHC240493112026) CAV ORDER DATED: 14/09/2026 Reserved On : 07/09/2026 Pronounced On : 14/09/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO. 15391 of 2026 ========================================================== RAMESHBHAI MASANGBHAI PAREGI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MS RAKSHA S KHATED(12987) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR NIRAV K PADHIYAR(5678) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER CAV 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 08.06.2026 passed by the learned trial Court i.e. learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tharad, Banaskantha in Criminal Misc. Application No.289 of 2026, whereby the learned trial Court has granted regular bail to the respondent–original accused in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11996007260116 of 2024 registered with Vav Police Station, District Vav-Tharad, for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(M), 65(1), 75(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. 2. Rule. Learned APP and learned advocate Mr.Nirav R/CR.MA/15391/2026(GJHC240493112026) CAV ORDER DATED: 14/09/2026 Padhiyar waive service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent – State and respondent – accused, respectively. 3.1 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. 3.2. 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. 3.3 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 R/CR.MA/15391/2026(GJHC240493112026) CAV ORDER DATED: 14/09/2026 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. 3.4 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 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 R/CR.MA/15391/2026(GJHC240493112026) CAV ORDER DATED: 14/09/2026 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 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 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 R/CR.MA/15391/2026(GJHC240493112026) CAV ORDER DATED: 14/09/2026 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 prosecution 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. 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. The present application is filed for cancellation of the regular bail granted to respondent No.2 by the learned Sessions Court vide order dated 08.06.2026, the FIR was registered with Vav Tharad Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(M), 65(1) and 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Page 5 of 19 R/CR.MA/15391/2026(GJHC240493112026) CAV ORDER DATED: 14/09/2026 6.2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim is a minor girl aged 14 years and 5 months. It is alleged that respondent No.2 abducted her from her house and thereafter committed rape upon her, the FIR was lodged by the father of the victim. The allegations are undoubtedly serious, the victim is a minor, the provisions of the POCSO Act have also been invoked, these aspects cannot be ignored. However, the present application is not for grant of bail, the bail has already been granted by the competent Court. Therefore, the question before this Court is whether there is sufficient ground to cancel the bail already granted. 6.3 The record shows that respondent No.2 was in judicial custody since March 2026. The learned Sessions Court considered the fact that the investigation was completed and the chargesheet had already been filed. It was also noticed that the trial may take some time to conclude. The Sessions Court also considered the material regarding the contact between the victim and respondent No.2, and on the basis of the material placed before it, the Court found that the possibility of a love affair between the victim and respondent No.2 could not be ruled out. This was one of the circumstances considered by the Court while deciding the application for regular bail. It is important to keep in mind that the power to cancel bail is not to be exercised merely because the allegations are serious, the Court has to examine whether there is any substantial reason to interfere with the order granting bail, R/CR.MA/15391/2026(GJHC240493112026) CAV ORDER DATED: 14/09/2026 such interference may be called for where the accused has misused the liberty granted to him, has attempted to influence the witnesses, has tampered with the evidence, has violated the conditions of bail or where the order granting bail suffers from a serious error. 6.4. In the present case, no such circumstance has been brought on record. There is no allegation that after being released on bail, respondent No.2 has threatened the victim or her family members, there is also no allegation that he has contacted any witness with a view to influence the evidence, no material is placed before the Court to show that he has violated any condition imposed by the learned Sessions Court. Another important aspect is that the investigation is already over and the chargesheet has been filed, therefore, the prosecution has completed the investigation and has placed its case before the Trial Court. In such circumstances, continued custody cannot be justified only on the ground that the allegations are grave, particularly when no misuse of liberty is alleged. 6.5. This Court is conscious of the age of the victim, the victim was 14 years and 5 months old at the relevant time. The protection given to a child under the POCSO Act is of great importance, at the same time, the present proceedings are confined to examining whether the bail granted to respondent No.2 should be cancelled. The evidence relating to the circumstances in which the victim left her house, her contact with respondent No.2 and R/CR.MA/15391/2026(GJHC240493112026) CAV ORDER DATED: 14/09/2026 the allegations made against him will have to be considered by the Trial Court during the trial. 6.6. At this stage, this Court is not required to examine the evidence in detail or record any finding on the truth of the allegations. Such an exercise may prejudice the case of either side. The Trial Court will consider the evidence independently at the appropriate stage. The order passed by the learned Sessions Court also cannot be said to have been passed without considering the relevant circumstances. The Court considered the period of custody, completion of investigation, filing of the chargesheet and the likely time required for conclusion of the trial. The material regarding the contact between the victim and respondent No.2 was also noticed. The applicant has not been able to point out any material which was not considered by the learned Sessions Court and which would make the order granting bail unsustainable. No subsequent event has been shown which would require respondent No.2 to be taken back into custody. 6.7. There is a distinction between refusing bail and cancelling bail. At the stage of grant of bail, the Court considers whether the accused should be released from custody. Once bail has been granted, cancellation requires a further circumstance which justifies taking away the liberty already granted. Such circumstance is not found in the present case. Page 8 of 19 R/CR.MA/15391/2026(GJHC240493112026) CAV ORDER DATED: 14/09/2026 6.8. Having considered the entire material, this Court finds that the learned Sessions Court exercised its discretion after considering the relevant facts. The investigation was completed. The chargesheet was filed, the Respondent No.2 had remained in custody since March 2026 and there is no material showing misuse of the liberty granted to him. 6.9. It emerges from the record that the respondent–accused was arrested during the course of investigation. However, even after his arrest, the Investigating Agency did not seek his custodial remand, which clearly indicates that substantial investigation qua the respondent–accused had already been completed and that his further detention was not considered necessary for the purposes of investigation. Taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned order, enlarged the respondent–accused on regular bail. 6.10. It is further pertinent to note that it was never the case of the prosecution that the presence of the respondent– accused was required for any further investigation. The learned trial Court, while granting bail, imposed stringent conditions to secure his presence and ensure that the investigation and trial were not prejudiced. Significantly, since the date of grant of bail, no untoward incident has been reported. Page 9 of 19 R/CR.MA/15391/2026(GJHC240493112026) CAV ORDER DATED: 14/09/2026 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. 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. 7. 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 R/CR.MA/15391/2026(GJHC240493112026) CAV ORDER DATED: 14/09/2026 warranting interference with the order granting bail. In the absence of any substantive material to justify the relief sought, the application does not merit consideration. 7.1 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 by the Court by involving himself in a subsequent crime. 7.2 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 : R/CR.MA/15391/2026(GJHC240493112026) CAV ORDER DATED: 14/09/2026 “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 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 R/CR.MA/15391/2026(GJHC240493112026) CAV ORDER DATED: 14/09/2026 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 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.” 7.3 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 : R/CR.MA/15391/2026(GJHC240493112026) CAV ORDER DATED: 14/09/2026 "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, 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 R/CR.MA/15391/2026(GJHC240493112026) CAV ORDER DATED: 14/09/2026 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 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 R/CR.MA/15391/2026(GJHC240493112026) CAV ORDER DATED: 14/09/2026 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 position of the Court of Session vis-a-vis the High Court." 7.4 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. 7.5 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 R/CR.MA/15391/2026(GJHC240493112026) CAV ORDER DATED: 14/09/2026 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 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 R/CR.MA/15391/2026(GJHC240493112026) CAV ORDER DATED: 14/09/2026 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." 7.6 At this juncture, the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dolat Ram & Ors. Vs. State of 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. 7.7 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. Page 18 of 19 R/CR.MA/15391/2026(GJHC240493112026) CAV ORDER DATED: 14/09/2026 8. The seriousness of the offence and the age of the victim are relevant considerations, however, in the facts of the present case, these circumstances alone do not provide sufficient ground for cancellation of bail. No perversity, illegality or material irregularity in the order granting bail has been pointed out. This Court, therefore, finds no reason to interfere with the order dated 08.06.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Court granting regular bail to respondent No.2. It is clarified that the observations made herein are only for deciding the present application. They shall not affect the merits of the trial. The Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of the evidence which may be led before it and in accordance with law. 9. 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 14/09/2026 15:05:24